Are they really going to put the cr-z AND a hybrid Fit on the same lot?

Will EITHER car have leather or a freaking moonroof??? That would seem natural for the 7 speaker, 360 watt CR-zzz I suppose. Dissapointing to think that if I wanted Fit like handling with a moonroof, I'd have to consider the CR-Z and foget about 3 seats and any thoughts of cargo.

 

Looks like they came up with a great idea but then stopped going back to the original idea and lost sight of it...too slow to appeal to someone looking for sport/performance, 2-seats/2-doors is too small/impractical for the family car buyer. Fuel economy is too low for "green" people who can get a Prius in the same price range.


It basically should appeal to no one. I'd be interested in learning who they think would actually buy it.

 

I'm waiting for one to hit the junkyard so I can get the 6spd trans and rear disc brake/trailing arm assembly

 

i would definitely NOT trade my FitS for the CR-Z. the CR-Z is pointless, unimpressive fuel economy, styling, performance, handling is only mediocre, boring interior, etc.

someone in a civic-Si would do circles around the CR-Z. CR-Z is another crap product by honda just after their flop Accord Crosstour.

 

Ugh... Crosstour. WTF were they thinking?

I'd have jumped on a US version of the Accord Estate:



Esp with the 2.2L Honda common-rail diesel. I'm pretty sure 251 lb-ft of torque at 2000 RPM would put a smile on my face.

 

I just read another road test by someone other than Motor Trend. I can't remember who, since I was on a long flight and half zonked, but they said if you have the 6 speed, and don't drive like an old lady, the CR-Z is not bad performance wise.

 

You can say the same thing about the 5sp Fit for that matter

From what I've read the 6sp performance wise is the same as the 5sp Fit performance wise. That is what Motor trend tested a 6sp manual. So did Jalopnik and C&D.

Ouch...C&D
....
"Opt for the six-speed manual, and the CR-Z delivers perhaps the most transparent hybrid experience available today, because you control the shift points and how quickly the gears are changed. Particularly with the three-mode adjustable drive system in Sport, it’s a relatively fun little car. But go for the CVT, as Honda expects 75 percent of buyers to do, and besides being a downer of a person, you lose any sense of joy and immediacy."

 

yah, let's just hope the TSX sportwagon is not ugly... but at $35K+ no thanks. i'd save up a tad more and get a A4 Avant.

 

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.[/QUOTE]

This is one, fact filled post and especially the last paragraph. Honda HAS TO BE low-balling its mpg ratings. I mean, I've gotten 42.6 mpg and then 42 mpg with the a/c on, 9 mpg better than the window sticker says

 

i think they should offer a base model one... L15 from the fit without the electric powerplant and the weight that goes with the hybrid system... it'd prob get the same mpg and be a LOT more fun

 

awesome discussion guys! I actually like that its smaller than the Fit, but I too can not see myself giving up the cargo room, even though I own an SUV, its nice to have a second option.

 

Honda isn't low-balling the MPG, it's those clowns at EPA who set up the parameters.