CRZ 0-60 10.5 sec / Fit ?
#41
07-30-2010, 08:04 AM
Yes, obviously you haven't. The fit is 200 lb lighter than the CRZ, roughly 2400 lb vs 2600.
Have you compared the 0-60 time for an AT Fit with the CRZ CVT. Better yet, go overseas and compare THEIR times for CVT vs MT on Fit.
Even R&T apologises for their CRZ compared to the CRX. For even better comparision wait'll Consumer Reports tests the CRZ because they don't abuse the clutches so they get much more typical times. And why does the CRZ get such poor mpg numbers, barely 10% better than Fit ?
If you want a true CRZ successor to the CRX get around VIR 3.27 course under 2:30 in STREET trim. Otherwise its a cute slug. I suggest about 2:48 to 3 minutes, same as a Fit.
Wait'll I see a R&T test of CRZ and compare acceleration to my 6 year old Civic 4 door hybrid. If that sucker doesn't beat it handily ....
Never mind my CRX's.
Its cute and probably handles well but it's still a slug.
Last edited by mahout; 08-03-2010 at 02:38 PM.
#42
07-30-2010, 08:11 AM
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
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
Ah yes, the experience. well, it don't go, chrome it.
As far as the NSX is concerned it had some oversteering difficulties. I should share a video of an Eclipse running down an NSX on Charlotte Motor Speedway, both competently driven but the NSX had some problems with oversteer. Not bad but enough for 200 hp to beat the 300 hp nsx.
As for mpg we have access to probably 50 and owned more than 2 dozen Hondas and we pretty much verified the EPA numbers for Hondas..
Last edited by mahout; 07-30-2010 at 08:13 AM.
#43
07-30-2010, 12:27 PM
Originally Posted by BlackNDecker
Have you even looked at the HP and TQ numbers.
Originally Posted by Honda
CR-Z [1]
- 1.5-liter SOHC i-VTEC 4-cylinder engine with Integrated Motor Assist (IMA)
- 122 horsepower (estimated) @ 6000 rpm (combined engine + IMA)
- 128 lb-ft. of torque (estimated) @ 1,000 – 1,500 rpm (123 lb-ft. for CVT), (combined engine + IMA)
Source: Honda CR-Z Specifications - Official Honda Web Site
- 1.5-liter SOHC i-VTEC 4-cylinder engine with Integrated Motor Assist (IMA)
- 122 horsepower (estimated) @ 6000 rpm (combined engine + IMA)
- 128 lb-ft. of torque (estimated) @ 1,000 – 1,500 rpm (123 lb-ft. for CVT), (combined engine + IMA)
Source: Honda CR-Z Specifications - Official Honda Web Site
The peak TQ, in pure numbers, is only a few % more (106 vs. 128), BUT....the area under the curve is going to be increased by as much as 50-100% (this is my estimation b/c I haven't seen a published dyno graph).... suffice to say that it is going to be dramatically increased.
Because of differences in power output, peak TQ at 1000 RPM, and dramatically increased area under the TQ curve, there is no friggin' way you can predict the effect of an 8% increase in body weight....mostly rearward where it will actually improve track handling.
Some people just don't get it and that's fine...they aren't cheeseburgers and Honda doesn't plan on selling a billion of them.
#44
08-01-2010, 01:16 PM
I think the CR-Z will be popular, especially for people wanting a coupe instead of a 4dr, also, but the CRZ price point is also about $2000-$3000 more then a fit sport, not sure if people will be willing to pay that much more
#45
08-01-2010, 05:12 PM
~SB
#46
08-01-2010, 05:54 PM
i think many would jump on 2k-3k more for a vehicle that will get 15-20% better economy, will be sportier to drive (although acceleration.... topic beaten to death here), and will be very distinguishable. Also, the aftermarket scene has shown already that there is great promise, for which there is not in the FIT. For those wanting a sporty coupe that is easy on the gas... right now, there is the civic and that's it. The CR-Z will add to the choices.
~SB
~SB
I doubt you will see 5-6 mpg improvement on the CRZ verus the fit, its basically the same engine, CRZ is 200lbs heavier.
Honda needs to do something because the insight is fugly!
I Assume the CR-Z is made in Japan as well?
#47
08-01-2010, 06:12 PM
true, another choice besides a civic, but the next gen civic will look a lot like the CR-Z especially if they bring the european civic style to North America.
I doubt you will see 5-6 mpg improvement on the CRZ verus the fit, its basically the same engine, CRZ is 200lbs heavier.
Honda needs to do something because the insight is fugly!
I Assume the CR-Z is made in Japan as well?
I doubt you will see 5-6 mpg improvement on the CRZ verus the fit, its basically the same engine, CRZ is 200lbs heavier.
Honda needs to do something because the insight is fugly!
I Assume the CR-Z is made in Japan as well?
to the best of my knowledge, the Civic Hatch is not coming back over here from europe. The Hatch I believe also runs on the FIT platform with the same rear suspension (just disc brakes) which would probably make too many hatches for the US. Europe can't get enough of hatches but the us is a Sedan/coupe country.
as for the Economy, the EPA puts the 6MT of the CRZ at 34 combined while the fit 5MT is 29 combined which is 5mpg right there. The highway for the Z is 37 while it's 33 for the fit. While the CR-Z is heavier, (18Xlbs I believe), it is more aerodynamic, which will definitely help. also the majority of economy is lost during acceleration, and that's where the electric motor will most certainly help. With normal driving, there will be less need to downshift on hills, or even shift to accelerate. I'd expect to see more improvement than 5-6mpg but for now, I'll go by EPA numbers and be [likely] conservative. (heck, my combined, albeit mostly country roads, is just under 38mpg.) I'd expect I would be mid to high 40's for the Z.
~SB
Last edited by specboy; 08-01-2010 at 06:15 PM.
#48
08-01-2010, 06:48 PM
The CR-Z has been available in Japan I believe since February and I believe you are right about production. Not sure which plant... 555 might have more info.
to the best of my knowledge, the Civic Hatch is not coming back over here from europe. The Hatch I believe also runs on the FIT platform with the same rear suspension (just disc brakes) which would probably make too many hatches for the US. Europe can't get enough of hatches but the us is a Sedan/coupe country.
as for the Economy, the EPA puts the 6MT of the CRZ at 34 combined while the fit 5MT is 29 combined which is 5mpg right there. The highway for the Z is 37 while it's 33 for the fit. While the CR-Z is heavier, (18Xlbs I believe), it is more aerodynamic, which will definitely help. also the majority of economy is lost during acceleration, and that's where the electric motor will most certainly help. With normal driving, there will be less need to downshift on hills, or even shift to accelerate. I'd expect to see more improvement than 5-6mpg but for now, I'll go by EPA numbers and be [likely] conservative. (heck, my combined, albeit mostly country roads, is just under 38mpg.) I'd expect I would be mid to high 40's for the Z.
~SB
to the best of my knowledge, the Civic Hatch is not coming back over here from europe. The Hatch I believe also runs on the FIT platform with the same rear suspension (just disc brakes) which would probably make too many hatches for the US. Europe can't get enough of hatches but the us is a Sedan/coupe country.
as for the Economy, the EPA puts the 6MT of the CRZ at 34 combined while the fit 5MT is 29 combined which is 5mpg right there. The highway for the Z is 37 while it's 33 for the fit. While the CR-Z is heavier, (18Xlbs I believe), it is more aerodynamic, which will definitely help. also the majority of economy is lost during acceleration, and that's where the electric motor will most certainly help. With normal driving, there will be less need to downshift on hills, or even shift to accelerate. I'd expect to see more improvement than 5-6mpg but for now, I'll go by EPA numbers and be [likely] conservative. (heck, my combined, albeit mostly country roads, is just under 38mpg.) I'd expect I would be mid to high 40's for the Z.
~SB
the real improvement in MPG will be with the AUTO and the CVT transmission
- EPA Estimated Fuel Economy, CVT (City/Highway/Combined): 35/39/37 miles per gallon [2]
- EPA Estimated Fuel Economy, MT (City/Highway/Combined): 31/37/34 miles per gallon [2]
#49
08-02-2010, 07:29 AM
Where are you getting your numbers? according to the specs the 6MT is 37 highway which is 4 mpg better then the fit, so 10% better?
the real improvement in MPG will be with the AUTO and the CVT transmission
- EPA Estimated Fuel Economy, CVT (City/Highway/Combined): 35/39/37 miles per gallon [2]
- EPA Estimated Fuel Economy, MT (City/Highway/Combined): 31/37/34 miles per gallon [2]
the real improvement in MPG will be with the AUTO and the CVT transmission
- EPA Estimated Fuel Economy, CVT (City/Highway/Combined): 35/39/37 miles per gallon [2]
- EPA Estimated Fuel Economy, MT (City/Highway/Combined): 31/37/34 miles per gallon [2]
Numbers are from Honda's website.
If we compare what people are likely to cross shop between the two for transmissions. 5MT VS 6MT or 5AT vs CVT, here's how the numbers play out. (remembering that the majority of people will be in the "combined" category)
yours above are for he CR-Z are what I read from honda's website and here's the fit:
27/33/29 - 5MT Sport
27/33/30 - 5AT Sport.
combined for the 6MT CRZ is 34
Combined for the 5MT sport is 29
5MPG Difference = 17.2% increase over the Fit
highway is 37 for the 6MT CRZ
Highway is 33 for both Sports
4mpg Difference = 12.12% increase over the Fit.
Those looking at the CVT would likely be the the individuals looking for the best in economy so the Fit base 5AT would be probably their 1st choice. (28/35/31)
combined for Z is 37
Combined for the Base 5AT is 31
6mpg diff = 19.4% increase over the fit.
Highway for the Z CVT is 39
Highway for the 5AT is 35
4mpg diff = 11.4mpg increase over the fit.
The range of improvement over the fit is 11.4 to 19.4 both from the CVT/Auto comparison. Interestingly enough they are also the best and worst improvements in regards to combined/highway although it does imply that the electric motor is likely to be most beneficial in periodic acceleration environments that "combined" driving provides.
~SB
#50
08-02-2010, 11:31 AM
Numbers are from Honda's website.
If we compare what people are likely to cross shop between the two for transmissions. 5MT VS 6MT or 5AT vs CVT, here's how the numbers play out. (remembering that the majority of people will be in the "combined" category)
yours above are for he CR-Z are what I read from honda's website and here's the fit:
27/33/29 - 5MT Sport
27/33/30 - 5AT Sport.
combined for the 6MT CRZ is 34
Combined for the 5MT sport is 29
5MPG Difference = 17.2% increase over the Fit
~SB
If we compare what people are likely to cross shop between the two for transmissions. 5MT VS 6MT or 5AT vs CVT, here's how the numbers play out. (remembering that the majority of people will be in the "combined" category)
yours above are for he CR-Z are what I read from honda's website and here's the fit:
27/33/29 - 5MT Sport
27/33/30 - 5AT Sport.
combined for the 6MT CRZ is 34
Combined for the 5MT sport is 29
5MPG Difference = 17.2% increase over the Fit
~SB
I get 30 mpg City and 38 mpg hwy (average normal driving usually 5 mph over the speed limit) in my Fit auto. I wonder if the CRZ will be also higher than the epa's?
I know in the city the CR-Z is going to get better mpg that's the plus with the hybrid system but I don't think hwy will be much difference than the Fit...all though aerodynamics and uplift plays a key roll at hwy speeds. I noticed a big difference when I lowered my Fit.
I personally think there are too many variables when it comes to hwy. Wind, aerodynamics, driving style...etc. Same as the Fiesta rated at 40 mph hwy . I think the Fit (auto) is just as capable when driven comparably even though its rated at 33 hwy.. I easily achieve 38 mpg hwy and have seen upward of 40+ often (calculated)...but that's just based on my personal experience with my modded Fit. It also seems to me the domestic automakers over calculate the mpg's and in real world nobody gets that..but the foriegn automakers are the opposite. At least I've noticed this with Honda. Although my TSX is right on par though with what the EPA rated it.
That's a pretty big jump in mpg city for the CR-Z... 31mpg vs 35 mpg. CVT must me boring as sh*t to drive if it gets that much better mpg than the manual. I'm guessing there is no "sport mode" in the CVT?
Last edited by Committobefit08; 08-02-2010 at 11:42 AM.
#52
08-02-2010, 01:04 PM
Few CRX owners will opt for the CRZ. Its way too slow. Except for aero improvements expect little difference from driving a Fit. Look for 60to100 mph times around 20 seconds. pretty much same as it MT.
#53
08-02-2010, 06:47 PM
Again, it's not $3000 but then again, you'd have a car with more sporty characteristics, probably a much better aftermarket, and is better for the economy.
As I said before, it's a niche car and for those that are getting low 30's for an AVG MPG on the FIT (and plan on keeping the car for 100k miles), being able to pick up a CR-Z for $1850 more than a fit might be something of interest.
Remember, you get more tech goodies too.
~SB
Last edited by specboy; 08-02-2010 at 06:50 PM.
#54
08-02-2010, 08:22 PM
One may only see a difference between the 2 if they take it to a circuit (or open winding roads) as far as driving feedback goes between the CR-Z and Fit. Around town, I doubt one will really see a difference or benefit of the CR-Z's stronger chassis.
About the fuel economy, the numbers are based on the normal mode setting as well. If one really wants to increase their FE in the CR-Z, they can drive around in the Economy mode, but it makes for a very lackluster, boring drive. Just go drive a Fit with a throttle controller installed and put it on E5 setting. I've tried it and my economy doesn't increase whatsoever because I still want to GOOOOOO, so the engine works even harder burning up more fuel and have noticed my fuel economy is best actually on the S7 setting as it quickly gets up to speed and I can lay off the throttle and when I give it some go pedal it just goes.
Last edited by 555sexydrive; 08-02-2010 at 08:27 PM.
#55
08-03-2010, 08:35 AM
Chassis is even stiffer and suspension settings are more sport oriented. I still want to see if the lower aluminum arms up front will mate up with the Fit. I was asking Spoon about it when at the Honda Day, but they said it wouldn't work as the geometry is different or something, but I think more they were just blowing me off. I'm not sure how different it is, since the CR-Z is based off of the Fit's chassis. If they mate up, would then like to also see if the 5 lug will swap over all around as well (does add some unsprung weight though). I already have the rear disc setup out back, thankfully that is something Honda didn't skimp on the RS here. If this would swap, it would open the door for a whole slew of wheels in the 5x114.7 range.
One may only see a difference between the 2 if they take it to a circuit (or open winding roads) as far as driving feedback goes between the CR-Z and Fit. Around town, I doubt one will really see a difference or benefit of the CR-Z's stronger chassis.
About the fuel economy, the numbers are based on the normal mode setting as well. If one really wants to increase their FE in the CR-Z, they can drive around in the Economy mode, but it makes for a very lackluster, boring drive. Just go drive a Fit with a throttle controller installed and put it on E5 setting. I've tried it and my economy doesn't increase whatsoever because I still want to GOOOOOO, so the engine works even harder burning up more fuel and have noticed my fuel economy is best actually on the S7 setting as it quickly gets up to speed and I can lay off the throttle and when I give it some go pedal it just goes.
One may only see a difference between the 2 if they take it to a circuit (or open winding roads) as far as driving feedback goes between the CR-Z and Fit. Around town, I doubt one will really see a difference or benefit of the CR-Z's stronger chassis.
About the fuel economy, the numbers are based on the normal mode setting as well. If one really wants to increase their FE in the CR-Z, they can drive around in the Economy mode, but it makes for a very lackluster, boring drive. Just go drive a Fit with a throttle controller installed and put it on E5 setting. I've tried it and my economy doesn't increase whatsoever because I still want to GOOOOOO, so the engine works even harder burning up more fuel and have noticed my fuel economy is best actually on the S7 setting as it quickly gets up to speed and I can lay off the throttle and when I give it some go pedal it just goes.
When you are dealing with 100 hp chassis extra stiifness doesn't help much but the info I get is that the CRZ does have better suspension geometery and due to better aero there should be some lap time improvements. I wouldn't count on much cross over of parts from CRZ to Fit.
its just SO dissapointing that Honda had the chance to show their superior automotive accomplhishments and failed to do do. Comparing 'Fit leading' and CRX at VIR' on you tube accounting for the different course configurations shows very quickly the problem. 30 seconds is a long time. We have the advantage of timing both on the same 3.27 mi course.
Last edited by mahout; 08-03-2010 at 12:53 PM.
#56
08-03-2010, 09:24 AM
Waiting for the fireworks...
Uhhh...how about the entire engine for starters
. Hondas are like Legos kid...this is why they are so popular with tuners.
Originally Posted by mahout
I wouldn't count on much cross over of parts from CRZ to Fit.
. Hondas are like Legos kid...this is why they are so popular with tuners.
#57
08-03-2010, 01:00 PM
I should have said extra stiffening. very few of the many showrron stock c class cars benefitted from much extra chassis welding. And I weas speaking of the chassis not engine even though I suspect there will be numerous actual internal engine parts deviationsbecause the engines are designed foir two different purposes.
Instead we're looking at supercharging the 1500 ebine. which is what Honda should have done. Maybe next year thats the CRX Si.
Instead we're looking at supercharging the 1500 ebine. which is what Honda should have done. Maybe next year thats the CRX Si.
#58
08-03-2010, 01:35 PM
Originally Posted by mahout
And I weas speaking of the chassis not engine even though I suspect there will be numerous actual internal engine parts deviations because the engines are designed foir two different purposes.
#59
08-03-2010, 01:49 PM
From what I've seen the CR-Z is pretty much the same as the Fit.
Motortrends manual CR-Z and Fit (GE8) are both 0-60 in 8.3.
I've personally tested my Fit (Auto) and was able to pull ~10.5-10.8 sec 0-60 (rough stopwatch estimating) which is about on par with the CR-Z CVT. Both these cars aren't suppose to be straight line racers so 0-60 doesn't really matter to me. I enjoying the handling aspect of these cars more.
Just as a side note I can get from 10-70 mph pretty darn quick (surprisingly for a 1.5L) coming out of some corners in sport mode. These cars shine when the revs are at 5k and holding.
Motortrends manual CR-Z and Fit (GE8) are both 0-60 in 8.3.
I've personally tested my Fit (Auto) and was able to pull ~10.5-10.8 sec 0-60 (rough stopwatch estimating) which is about on par with the CR-Z CVT. Both these cars aren't suppose to be straight line racers so 0-60 doesn't really matter to me. I enjoying the handling aspect of these cars more.
Just as a side note I can get from 10-70 mph pretty darn quick (surprisingly for a 1.5L) coming out of some corners in sport mode. These cars shine when the revs are at 5k and holding.
I wouldn't mind a 10 seconds range in a light nimble car like the honda beat, because it's still really fun to drive, but on a not so small/light car like the crz, it's a bit slow.
Last edited by broody; 08-03-2010 at 02:05 PM.
#60
08-03-2010, 02:25 PM
Which stock c class cars are you referring to? Reference? (You might have noticed that I reference every factual statement I make...and that I clarify those that aren't as my opinion).
All we know at this point is that the engines are identical specs wise. I predict a letter change in the engine code...i.e. L15b or whatever. It is pretty well established that the CR-Z is based on the Fit chassis (no reference) and this suggests there will be quite a bit of interchangeability.
All we know at this point is that the engines are identical specs wise. I predict a letter change in the engine code...i.e. L15b or whatever. It is pretty well established that the CR-Z is based on the Fit chassis (no reference) and this suggests there will be quite a bit of interchangeability.
"Platform shares some components with the Jazz and the Insights model, but wheelbase, wide track and set-up all the unique new hybrids. Overall, the Honda CR-Z has a wheelbase 115mm shorter and shorter overall length is 310 mm from the Insight, increase agility and weight between 57 kg less than than the five door, five-seat family car cousin."
Honda CR-Z 2011 Efficient Car - Car News And Reviews on AutoMild.Com
"The basic architecture of the suspension for the CR-Z is similar to the Insight and the Fit. Changes have been made to components to suit the sporty nature of the CR-Z in order to maximize driver enjoyment. The springs, dampers and anti-roll bars are unique and suit the different characteristics of the CR-Z. The lower arms of the front MacPherson strut suspension are forged aluminum, rather than pressed steel, to reduce unsprung weight and increase responsiveness."
2011 Honda CR-Z: Chassis - Honda.com