CRZ 0-60 10.5 sec / Fit ?
#21
Also worth noting is the 6-speed maual gear ratios. The final drive is lower (i.e. taller gearing) so no chance of hot swapping the FD for a performance boost. Also, 6th gear is taller than our 5th gear...if I'm reading this correctly, that means we won't be able to swap it in hopes of improved economy. 5 --> 6 gear conversion is actually fairly straightforward on Honda K series transmissions...I presume the same would be true for the L series.
Thoughts?
On and this is all GREAT info decker. Thanks!
edit: Oh and I already rep'd you earlier(I think) for one of your responses to gbaby lol
Last edited by GrocerySnake; 07-27-2010 at 11:10 PM.
#22
Originally Posted by GrocerySnake
edit: Oh and I already rep'd you earlier(I think) for one of your responses to gbaby lol
I am not a gear guru...what little I know is that a high final drive is good for acceleration. You may be right about the individual gears. If so, this would be an easy mod to significantly boost highway mpg.
People are doing this with the K-swaps...using TSX final drives in RSX and Civic trannies. I've also seen someone instal a TSX 6th gear into a Honda Element and boosted highway mpg to 38!!!
#23
I am not a gear guru...what little I know is that a high final drive is good for acceleration. You may be right about the individual gears. If so, this would be an easy mod to significantly boost highway mpg.
People are doing this with the K-swaps...using TSX final drives in RSX and Civic trannies. I've also seen someone instal a TSX 6th gear into a Honda Element and boosted highway mpg to 38!!!
#24
I understand that, and it is good news, but it stands to reason that anything that was in development for the GE might have been urged by Honda, or whoever, to end up with a final target of being a specific CR-Z part so that they can give the car that they are actually trying to sell as being sporty, some aftermarket goods close to release date. Sounds like that strategy may have worked out pretty well in Japan with the car's popularity.
#25
Whoa, I didn't know the motor added 57 lb/ft, but sure enough! Uh - I just changed my whole tune regarding this car. With that much power on tap, it will impress the average Honda buyer. Especially the repeat buyers. Torque - what's that!? They could sell well; they really could.
So, the picture is becoming a bit more clear as to why things seem to have halted with GE tuner-part developments. Looks like the Japanese consumer market isn't the only thing keeping up with the Jones'. I think the Fit may have just been skipped!
So, the picture is becoming a bit more clear as to why things seem to have halted with GE tuner-part developments. Looks like the Japanese consumer market isn't the only thing keeping up with the Jones'. I think the Fit may have just been skipped!
- More gears isn't always better, it's how they are actually geared which makes a difference (kind of like more light from headlights isn't always better, its the placement of the beam that matters) The 6MT is geared specifically for the Hybrid IMA system.
- 1st gear from the CR-Z isn't as good as in the fit 5mt (but better than the 5AT) so a swap would mean that your acceleration would actually drop a little bit as the 6mt is tuned for the additional torque down low from the IMA motor. It would require more revving of the engine to get going to counter the lack of torque from the L15. (It's fine in the 5AT because the computer controls all of this but in the 5MT, it would mean more driver input and harder starts on a hill/more stalls)
- 6th gear is a better cruising gear (fuel economy) than 5th in the 5MT but not as good as 5th gear in the 5AT. The 5AT FIT is your highway king out of the 3 choices (5MT/6MT Swap/5AT)
- End result of a 6MT swap into the fit is slower acceleration with better economy on the highway - Definitely a swap only for those people who need a Manual Trans and drive lots of highway. the current 5MT is a better solution for those who want a MT and drive mostly city/combined.
~SB
#26
- More gears isn't always better, it's how they are actually geared which makes a difference (kind of like more light from headlights isn't always better, its the placement of the beam that matters) The 6MT is geared specifically for the Hybrid IMA system.
- 1st gear from the CR-Z isn't as good as in the fit 5mt (but better than the 5AT) so a swap would mean that your acceleration would actually drop a little bit as the 6mt is tuned for the additional torque down low from the IMA motor. It would require more revving of the engine to get going to counter the lack of torque from the L15. (It's fine in the 5AT because the computer controls all of this but in the 5MT, it would mean more driver input and harder starts on a hill/more stalls)
- 6th gear is a better cruising gear (fuel economy) than 5th in the 5MT but not as good as 5th gear in the 5AT. The 5AT FIT is your highway king out of the 3 choices (5MT/6MT Swap/5AT)
- End result of a 6MT swap into the fit is slower acceleration with better economy on the highway - Definitely a swap only for those people who need a Manual Trans and drive lots of highway. the current 5MT is a better solution for those who want a MT and drive mostly city/combined.
~SB
#27
The Plus side to the full 57 lb/ft is that it's available down low but [because of this higher amount of readily available torque], 1st gear has been altered a bit and isn't as low as the 5mt in the fit. If the 5mt 1st gear was combined with the IMA motor, The CR-Z would probably be even quicker off the line but would probably be slower to 60 because of the need for a lower 2nd/3rd/etc... and possibly yet another shift would be required. If Honda were to adjust/retune the engine with a higher Redline and give the CR-Z the right gearing, it would probably negate the need for a 2-3 shift to 60mph and those who worry about 0-60 numbers would likely be happy with it's acceleration (Probably close to 7 or 7.5 - maybe less.) The Retune would make the CR-Z more like my Integra GS-R where the 8100rpm redline allowed me to still be in 2nd gear at 62mph - hence the 7 second 0-60.
Those 2-3 shifts can kill 0-60 numbers for sure. I had a car that required a shift right before 60, and it's performance specs in no way matched up to the way the car felt.
In my opinion, it bears resemblance to the AP1 S2k. I've even mistaken one of the tricked out ones on carview for the famous roadster:
#28
Better to be sad now and richer, than Sad later and poorer
Sometimes we get tied up too much in specs to look at the bigger picture. Kind of like what I mentioned about Brightness and lighting.
~SB
Sometimes we get tied up too much in specs to look at the bigger picture. Kind of like what I mentioned about Brightness and lighting.
Originally Posted by and I digress ~SB
aftermarket HID's in a reflector environment designed for halogen bulbs is worse for the driver (and oncoming driver) in actual situations where HID lighting should be better - on country roads in the middle of the night. while they may be brighter and have more lumens, the lack of aim causes alot of reflection back into your pupil which then constricts - so you see less.
Last edited by specboy; 07-28-2010 at 01:45 PM.
#31
~SB
#32
Ok time for a rant!!!!
I'm sorry but a average Joe driving is not going to see a performance difference between the Fit and the CR-Z especially on public roads. Not even 20% of drivers on the road really push their cars to their limits (which is stupid if you are on public roads in the first place).
Unless your side by side on a track which more in likely the more experienced/better driver will take the cake no matter which car it is.
With all these performance #'s coming in it pretty much proves the CR-Z and the Fit will be almost a complete tie in real world driving performance and gas mileage. Obviously the city mpg might be slightly higher in the CR-Z but for a 2K higher price tag I wouldn't be too excited. Different strokes for different folks IMO. Either buy a overpriced two seater "hybrid" Fit (CR-Z) or save 2K and buy a Fit. If your into looks (the look at me factor) and only want a two seater then the CR-Z is your car....but for me I will just keep my practical/cheaper to own Fit.
I'm done.
I'm sorry but a average Joe driving is not going to see a performance difference between the Fit and the CR-Z especially on public roads. Not even 20% of drivers on the road really push their cars to their limits (which is stupid if you are on public roads in the first place).
Unless your side by side on a track which more in likely the more experienced/better driver will take the cake no matter which car it is.
With all these performance #'s coming in it pretty much proves the CR-Z and the Fit will be almost a complete tie in real world driving performance and gas mileage. Obviously the city mpg might be slightly higher in the CR-Z but for a 2K higher price tag I wouldn't be too excited. Different strokes for different folks IMO. Either buy a overpriced two seater "hybrid" Fit (CR-Z) or save 2K and buy a Fit. If your into looks (the look at me factor) and only want a two seater then the CR-Z is your car....but for me I will just keep my practical/cheaper to own Fit.
I'm done.
Last edited by Committobefit08; 07-28-2010 at 02:46 PM.
#33
Is that all they are costing, just $2K more?!?! Wow, if that was the case here I easily would of went that route. The CR-Z here is more like $8K more all the way up to about $10K. It makes no sense for me to sell or trade because used cars fetch nothing in Japan compared to the US. Here it is a given that people dump newer cars because they don't like having to do the inspection after the 3rd year and the mentality of got to have the newest thing. Cars are very disposable in Japan unlike the US where a 10yo Honda can still fetch a decent amount of coin if in good condition.
#34
See the CRZ spec with CVT
page 2 - 2011 Honda CR-Z Specifications - Road Test - RoadandTrack.com
10.5 sec 0 - 60 seems slow. Anyone know what it is for our stock Fit?
page 2 - 2011 Honda CR-Z Specifications - Road Test - RoadandTrack.com
10.5 sec 0 - 60 seems slow. Anyone know what it is for our stock Fit?
Both C&D and R&T quoted about 10 sec for our Fit.
The CRZ is much slower likely because of the extra weight of IMA.
Why Honda ever built the CRZ as an HX and not have an Si is beyond comprehension. And who wants a 2 door Fit? i predict they'll start sitting on lots after 3 months.
It would have been so easy to use the 2 liter engine, hipo it or turbo the 1.5, and add the electric motor IMA from the Civic. I hope Sochiro comes back and haunts all those responsible for the CRZ as it is.
Last edited by mahout; 07-29-2010 at 12:57 PM.
#35
10 sec is for the AT, the MT is around 8.5. I'm pretty sure the MT model is also quicker than the CVT counterpart. And if in Sport mode (essentially a built-in throttle controller) it will be quicker still. Again, why does this number mean so damn much to people? What good is it for?
I would want a 2 door Fit, since you asked who would want one. Actually you would be surprised, because if Soichiro was still alive today, I'm sure he would be ecstatic with the company and where it sits.
I would want a 2 door Fit, since you asked who would want one. Actually you would be surprised, because if Soichiro was still alive today, I'm sure he would be ecstatic with the company and where it sits.
#36
10 sec is for the AT, the MT is around 8.5. I'm pretty sure the MT model is also quicker than the CVT counterpart. And if in Sport mode (essentially a built-in throttle controller) it will be quicker still. Again, why does this number mean so damn much to people? What good is it for?
I would want a 2 door Fit, since you asked who would want one. Actually you would be surprised, because if Soichiro was still alive today, I'm sure he would be ecstatic with the company and where it sits.
I would want a 2 door Fit, since you asked who would want one. Actually you would be surprised, because if Soichiro was still alive today, I'm sure he would be ecstatic with the company and where it sits.
Where is yoiur reference?
But you are correct that 0-60 is worthless; the true measure is 60 to 100 and thanks only to aero the CZ should be faster. but its still a slug, giving away 200 lb to the Fit with rteally no more power.
And i met Mr Honda many years ago and I guarantee you he would not be proud of the CRZ, as is. performance was always priority.
#38
Where is yoiur reference?
But you are correct that 0-60 is worthless; the true measure is 60 to 100 and thanks only to aero the CZ should be faster. but its still a slug, giving away 200 lb to the Fit with rteally no more power.
And i met Mr Honda many years ago and I guarantee you he would not be proud of the CRZ, as is. performance was always priority.
But you are correct that 0-60 is worthless; the true measure is 60 to 100 and thanks only to aero the CZ should be faster. but its still a slug, giving away 200 lb to the Fit with rteally no more power.
And i met Mr Honda many years ago and I guarantee you he would not be proud of the CRZ, as is. performance was always priority.
Performance was always his priority, you sure about that? He loved technology and doing much with little. He had a strong passion for racing and not straight-line kind. So what all was performance oriented during his time of running the company? Hmmm, the S500, 600 and 800 I guess you could say were performance oriented, but were not barn burners but they were sports cars. He was just a figure head and not running the company when the NS-X was released, which means he wasn't in charge when the S2000 was released, nor the Integra R, Civic R, Accord Euro R and whatever else one wants to call a performance model for Honda.
#40
Both C&D and R&T quoted about 10 sec for our Fit.
The CRZ is much slower likely because of the extra weight of IMA.
Why Honda ever built the CRZ as an HX and not have an Si is beyond comprehension. And who wants a 2 door Fit? i predict they'll start sitting on lots after 3 months.
It would have been so easy to use the 2 liter engine, hipo it or turbo the 1.5, and add the electric motor IMA from the Civic. I hope Sochiro comes back and haunts all those responsible for the CRZ as it is.
The CRZ is much slower likely because of the extra weight of IMA.
Why Honda ever built the CRZ as an HX and not have an Si is beyond comprehension. And who wants a 2 door Fit? i predict they'll start sitting on lots after 3 months.
It would have been so easy to use the 2 liter engine, hipo it or turbo the 1.5, and add the electric motor IMA from the Civic. I hope Sochiro comes back and haunts all those responsible for the CRZ as it is.
As for its fuel economy, if the EPA numbers are as off on the CR-Z as they are on my car, you can expect a much higher number than expected. The Sport 5MT is rated at 33 highway, 29 combined. Most of my driving is country roads with VERY VERY little actual highway. I have a few 25mph towns on my way to work and also a few stop signs. My lifetime avg MPG is almost 38mpg (calculated) and I do not hypermile at all. That's 5 over the highway and 9 over the combined ratings for my car. I'm a little light on the gas when in traffic which saves some fuel but when I'm going through the hills and on the twisties, I'm definitely not in gas saving mode which is a daily occurrence. I also use the fact that I can pass legally on a double yellow here in VT on a moderately regular basis (which as we all know will require a downshift or two).
If the CR-Z is expecting high 30's cobined, I'd expect to see a realtime averages in the mid 40's or higher. that's nothing to scoff at.
Also, as 555 stated, it's not necessarily about the power or performance in straight line acceleration but it's about the experience, the drive, something I feel the Fit already has and I know the CR-Z will definitely have. The NSX was the lowest in it's class for power, but many times has been put on the track with cars that have 2x the power and the NSX sticks with them. (there's a vid somewhere with an NSX, a Gallardo, Ferrari(not sure) and a porsche.... the NSX lead the group until the end of a 10? lap run)
~SB