Wait, if the 6th is taller than our 5th, doesnt that mean it goes "higher", thus less work for the engine? Im sorry, I thought I had a decent grasp on how gearing works...guess not

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

 

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!!!

 

Hmm, and Im assuming that both transmissions have the same mounting points and are interchangeable? That could be an option, albeit much more expensive lol. Im definitely gonna look into a 6th gear transplant

 

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.

 

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.

The 6MT from the CR-Z is a tradeoff.

• 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.

You may want to reconsider the swap if performance is important because while it sounds nice, it'll actually slow your fit down without adding extra torque from an outside source such as turbo/super/IMA (and we all know how many of those options there are )

~SB

 

You make me sad

 

Yeah, that's what surprised me. I am still in diesel mentality, thinking that the overall powertrain torque specs peaked low and tapered off, so whatever the max torque rating is listed, that is at 2000 rpms usually. I forgot there is a gasoline engine in there! A dyno of this car vs. a regular Fit should be telling. Power under the curve is what counts. I wonder if the 1/8th mile times will be good? I loved the tdi, but having the power curve be so flat can make you wish you had a gasser to wind out and ramp up in the power. The CR-Z, besides the whole 2-seater thing, is the perfect car for me.

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:

 

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

 

I can't wait until the CR-Z releases. I think I might get one after I finish paying off the GE8.

 

Looks like the Insight has the same torque bump down low. I need to go to the dealership and give one a drive out of curiosity. I like the premise of having an integrated motor. Seems simpler.

 

It is simpler, which is why it's cheaper to buy an Insight than a Prius. Honda was looking to supplement it's engines with electric power from the "get-go", not use electric instead of gas like the Prius.

~SB

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Have you even looked at the HP and TQ numbers?

 

Reference to what? You said the Fit is like 10 seconds to 60, in AT form, the manual is about 8.5 seconds. Hell with my throttle controller set to SP7 I can get to 100km/h(62mph) in just over 8 seconds. My reference is also watching first hand the CR-Z on track at Nikko, a small circuit, yet them coming off the final corner onto the short straight into the first corner, they were quick off that corner. Ichiro's CR-Z was just under 4 seconds quicker around the circuit than my Fit. He might be a better driver than I attributing to the better time, but his car was not really tuned except for I believe some sussy and an axle-back. Regardless the MT will be faster than the CVT. Why didn't R&T test a manual version and only test the CVT model?

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.

 

Seen this around Japan 555? Becuz this is HOT!!!!

 

Who wants a 2 door Fit? (or a 2 Dr Honda Hatch...). Alot of people I think would want one since the Last Gen Civic Si was a 2 door hatch, the current Euro Civic is offered as a 2-Dr Hatch.

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