CRZ 0-60 10.5 sec / Fit ?
Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,462
From: Vermont
You can always tell the posters with little practical knowedge. They always have to exhibit their language skills.
I have 3 engineering degrees and 50 years engineering and testing cars and tires in the automotive field. I have owned more than 150 cars, raced a good percentage of them. A great deal of knowledge in the industry is not published because its confidential, your route to winning on track or manufacturing line. If you don't agree with the futility of welding chassis braces for 100 hp SS cars find some competitors in SS and see if they added welded braces. Youll have a hard time because many of us found just how much time was wasted on bracing chassis unless they had been wrecked.
Ask a chassis engineer how much torque can be loaded into a road worthy vehicle from a 100 hp engine compared to the iffness of an already fabricated frame and chassis to meet engineering specs for a road worthy vehicle.
If you want proof of just how confidential knowledge is try to tour the engine labs at any NASCAR competitor.
Whats your credentials?
I have 3 engineering degrees and 50 years engineering and testing cars and tires in the automotive field. I have owned more than 150 cars, raced a good percentage of them. A great deal of knowledge in the industry is not published because its confidential, your route to winning on track or manufacturing line. If you don't agree with the futility of welding chassis braces for 100 hp SS cars find some competitors in SS and see if they added welded braces. Youll have a hard time because many of us found just how much time was wasted on bracing chassis unless they had been wrecked.
Ask a chassis engineer how much torque can be loaded into a road worthy vehicle from a 100 hp engine compared to the iffness of an already fabricated frame and chassis to meet engineering specs for a road worthy vehicle.
If you want proof of just how confidential knowledge is try to tour the engine labs at any NASCAR competitor.
Whats your credentials?
)Not all improvements are performance related. Remember that better is a relative term and better for one person isn't necessarily better for everyone.
BND - take a pill for a few min. If MH is indeed qualified, and we have no reason not to believe him, there's no reason to jump all over him. If you don't believe it, take it with a grain of salt and say... I'll believe it when I see it. Personally, I haven't seen the rumors of the 1.8L either but if Honda does decide to do it, it'll be a great addition. I'd expect an R18 with an electric assist to be around 145hp which would be more than enough to vault the car to 60 quick enough for most. If MH is blowing smoke... Just tag this post for the future and call BS then.
~SB
Banned
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,346
From: Small Town WI
Of note the HX geting 38 to 41 (IMO) isn't really that impressive. My Fit is at 38 and if the real-life numbers for the CR-Z are the same amount over what honda is posting as what my fit is, I'd expect to see the Z in the low 40's and higher. (to be honest, i was expecting numbers on the HX to be in the high 40's - that motor's just barely breaking in )
)
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,371
From: NC USA
You were wrong and corrected (see post #44), but never responded...no surprise.
But this takes the cake:
You asked 555sexydrive for a reference in post #37.
Then you later scoffed at the thought of having to validate any of your wild claims...
Are you kidding me?
Now you resort to an immature ego defense by brandishing your degrees and asking for my credentials...
And more wild claims:
SRSLY?!? Now you try to flex your e-penis by bragging about 3 engineering degrees!! LOL.
I’m not impressed by your degrees...I’m actually underwhelmed by your ability to defend your arguments. Stating your education and asking for someone’s credentials is an immature ego defense. The amount of education proves nothing...the ability to discuss a topic and provide references to support your argument is what is in question.
You probably wouldn’t believe me if I told you. The only way to prove my professional occupation would be to reveal my identity and lose my anonymity...and I really don’t care to get into this type of discussion on an anonymous internet forum. Suffice to say, that I have a significant scientific background.
But this takes the cake:
You asked 555sexydrive for a reference in post #37.
Then you later scoffed at the thought of having to validate any of your wild claims...
Are you kidding me?
Now you resort to an immature ego defense by brandishing your degrees and asking for my credentials...
And more wild claims:
SRSLY?!? Now you try to flex your e-penis by bragging about 3 engineering degrees!! LOL.
I’m not impressed by your degrees...I’m actually underwhelmed by your ability to defend your arguments. Stating your education and asking for someone’s credentials is an immature ego defense. The amount of education proves nothing...the ability to discuss a topic and provide references to support your argument is what is in question.
You probably wouldn’t believe me if I told you. The only way to prove my professional occupation would be to reveal my identity and lose my anonymity...and I really don’t care to get into this type of discussion on an anonymous internet forum. Suffice to say, that I have a significant scientific background.
Try reading CRZ preview in Car & Driver Sept issue, page 84.
Quote:
"Honda is trying to be all things to all people, and it would be better served focusing on what drove its success in the first place: making stuff that's uncompromisingly great and not merely good".
Exactly.
Curb weight: 2650 lb -2750lb.
l0-60 mph: 8.9 - 9.2 seconds
standing SS1/4: 16.4-16.6 sec
top speed : 114 mph.
Checked your Fit road tests from 2008?
Member
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 293
From: Montréal, Québec
spec boy, The fit isn't much more comfortable (noise level and seats) than some old lighter cars. Improvment in safety is considerable I can't deny.
But the still, the insight mk1 isn't that old (still sold 5 years ago) and was pretty light, even with the battery, electric stuff and some safety features.
And they could at least improve aerodynamic on "normal cars" (not only hybrids) to improve highway mpg.
I remember I read an article on a guy who cut a part of his geo metro xf and did some aero mods, he did like 3.2l/100km (about 1 less than oem) at moderate cruising speeds, with that 20 years old technology. The smart, even the old cdi 42hp, doesn't make as good, is slower and offers seating for two also.
Modern technologies and materials should serve the weight reduction (or at least counter the weight gain), but it doesn't looks like it's the case. Still, some cars are a bit lighter than before, like the new mustang, nissan 370z, citroen c5 II, etc.
And blue tooth and sat nav weight like 500 grams, that's not what will make a car heavy. Completely useless features though.
But the still, the insight mk1 isn't that old (still sold 5 years ago) and was pretty light, even with the battery, electric stuff and some safety features.
And they could at least improve aerodynamic on "normal cars" (not only hybrids) to improve highway mpg.
I remember I read an article on a guy who cut a part of his geo metro xf and did some aero mods, he did like 3.2l/100km (about 1 less than oem) at moderate cruising speeds, with that 20 years old technology. The smart, even the old cdi 42hp, doesn't make as good, is slower and offers seating for two also.
Modern technologies and materials should serve the weight reduction (or at least counter the weight gain), but it doesn't looks like it's the case. Still, some cars are a bit lighter than before, like the new mustang, nissan 370z, citroen c5 II, etc.
And blue tooth and sat nav weight like 500 grams, that's not what will make a car heavy. Completely useless features though.
Last edited by broody; Aug 4, 2010 at 07:04 PM.
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,371
From: NC USA
Already told you that 100 hp in a road vehicle would not get much benefit from extra chassis stiffening. 128 pound-feet of torque in a chassis specifed typically at 20,000 lb-ft per degree means 0.0064 degrees of deflection. Think that will show up on a chassis dyno?
Incedently 20,000 lb-ft is on the low end of chassis stiffness scales.
The specs on the CRZ is pretty close to Fit's so I doubt if there will be much difference in straight line performance except at top speed due to lesser cross-section and better aero.
Car&Driver says the acceleration is much the same but top speed is better just as anyone familiar with technicakl evaluations would tell you.
Their opinion is the same as mine. CRZ is a big disappointment.
Last edited by mahout; Aug 4, 2010 at 07:08 PM.
Member
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,316
From: Minnesota
BND - take a pill for a few min. If MH is indeed qualified, and we have no reason not to believe him, there's no reason to jump all over him. If you don't believe it, take it with a grain of salt and say... I'll believe it when I see it. Personally, I haven't seen the rumors of the 1.8L either but if Honda does decide to do it, it'll be a great addition. I'd expect an R18 with an electric assist to be around 145hp which would be more than enough to vault the car to 60 quick enough for most. If MH is blowing smoke... Just tag this post for the future and call BS then.
~SB
All I wanted was references so I could read more about a topic I wasn't aware of. My requests to mahout were either ignored or outright refused.
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,371
From: NC USA
spec boy, The fit isn't much more comfortable (noise level and seats) than some old lighter cars. Improvment in safety is considerable I can't deny.
But the still, the insight mk1 isn't that old (still sold 5 years ago) and was pretty light, even with the battery, electric stuff and some safety features.
And they could at least improve aerodynamic on "normal cars" (not only hybrids) to improve highway mpg.
I remember I read an article on a guy who cut a part of his geo metro xf and did some aero mods, he did like 3.2l/100km (about 1 less than oem) at moderate cruising speeds, with that 20 years old technology. The smart, even the old cdi 42hp, doesn't make as good, is slower and offers seating for two also.
Modern technologies and materials should serve the weight reduction (or at least counter the weight gain), but it doesn't looks like it's the case. Still, some cars are a bit lighter than before, like the new mustang, nissan 370z, citroen c5 II, etc.
And blue tooth and sat nav weight like 500 grams, that's not what will make a car heavy. Completely useless features though.
But the still, the insight mk1 isn't that old (still sold 5 years ago) and was pretty light, even with the battery, electric stuff and some safety features.
And they could at least improve aerodynamic on "normal cars" (not only hybrids) to improve highway mpg.
I remember I read an article on a guy who cut a part of his geo metro xf and did some aero mods, he did like 3.2l/100km (about 1 less than oem) at moderate cruising speeds, with that 20 years old technology. The smart, even the old cdi 42hp, doesn't make as good, is slower and offers seating for two also.
Modern technologies and materials should serve the weight reduction (or at least counter the weight gain), but it doesn't looks like it's the case. Still, some cars are a bit lighter than before, like the new mustang, nissan 370z, citroen c5 II, etc.
And blue tooth and sat nav weight like 500 grams, that's not what will make a car heavy. Completely useless features though.
The reason modern cars are more fuel efficient is because their efficiency has improved in spite of big weight gains from required safety standards.
Cost prevents using titanium and aluminum from being used in cars having to meet market prices. A 2200 lb Fit can be built but the cost would be $33,000. The new Ford Mustang lists weights in the 3500-3800 lb range. My 65 weighed 2600 lb or so if memory serves, about the same as a Fit.
Member
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,316
From: Minnesota
Already told you that 100 hp in a road vehicle would not get much benefit from extra chassis stiffening. 128 pound-feet of torque in a chassis specifed typically at 20,000 lb-ft per degree means 0.0064 degrees of deflection. Think that will show up on a chassis dyno?
Incedently 20,000 lb-ft is on the low end of chassis stiffness scales.
The specs on the CRZ is pretty close to Fit's so I doubt if there will be much difference in straight line performance except at top speed due to lesser cross-section and better aero.
Car&Driver says the acceleration is much the same but top speed is better just as anyone familiar with technicakl evaluations would tell you.
Their opinion is the same as mine. CRZ is a big disappointment.
Incedently 20,000 lb-ft is on the low end of chassis stiffness scales.
The specs on the CRZ is pretty close to Fit's so I doubt if there will be much difference in straight line performance except at top speed due to lesser cross-section and better aero.
Car&Driver says the acceleration is much the same but top speed is better just as anyone familiar with technicakl evaluations would tell you.
Their opinion is the same as mine. CRZ is a big disappointment.
The beauty of honda is not the rock you get on the showroom floor...instead it's the diamond just beneath the surface that is revealed with aftermarket support. Look at the K20z3...a 2.0 liter engine capable of 230+ hp with bolt ons....even more with head work. The sky is the limit so far with the k motor...I have even seen 1,000 hp produced with forced induction. 1,000 hp with a fawking 4 cylinder!!!!!
I think the potential is there for the CR-z...imagine swapping in a larger electric motor for greater torque gains. And later a supercharger for more hp.
Honda is showing us the future...we just have to adapt.
Last edited by blackndecker; Aug 4, 2010 at 07:32 PM.
Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,462
From: Vermont
spec boy, The fit isn't much more comfortable (noise level and seats) than some old lighter cars. Improvment in safety is considerable I can't deny.
But the still, the insight mk1 isn't that old (still sold 5 years ago) and was pretty light, even with the battery, electric stuff and some safety features.
And they could at least improve aerodynamic on "normal cars" (not only hybrids) to improve highway mpg.
I remember I read an article on a guy who cut a part of his geo metro xf and did some aero mods, he did like 3.2l/100km (about 1 less than oem) at moderate cruising speeds, with that 20 years old technology. The smart, even the old cdi 42hp, doesn't make as good, is slower and offers seating for two also.
Modern technologies and materials should serve the weight reduction (or at least counter the weight gain), but it doesn't looks like it's the case. Still, some cars are a bit lighter than before, like the new mustang, nissan 370z, citroen c5 II, etc.
And blue tooth and sat nav weight like 500 grams, that's not what will make a car heavy. Completely useless features though.
But the still, the insight mk1 isn't that old (still sold 5 years ago) and was pretty light, even with the battery, electric stuff and some safety features.
And they could at least improve aerodynamic on "normal cars" (not only hybrids) to improve highway mpg.
I remember I read an article on a guy who cut a part of his geo metro xf and did some aero mods, he did like 3.2l/100km (about 1 less than oem) at moderate cruising speeds, with that 20 years old technology. The smart, even the old cdi 42hp, doesn't make as good, is slower and offers seating for two also.
Modern technologies and materials should serve the weight reduction (or at least counter the weight gain), but it doesn't looks like it's the case. Still, some cars are a bit lighter than before, like the new mustang, nissan 370z, citroen c5 II, etc.
And blue tooth and sat nav weight like 500 grams, that's not what will make a car heavy. Completely useless features though.
As for the Gen1 Insight, it's a 10 year old car. Just because it was produced up until 5 years ago doesn't make the technology in the vehicle or the design/safety really any newer. My Integra GS-R was only 7 years old when I traded it but the technology in the engine and safety measures were over 14 years old. (the car sold for 8 years without a FMC). also the insight had an MSRP of just under $19K (19,3 for '06) while 10 years later, a much more advanced vehicle (CR-Z) is just under $20K Granted, it has some trade-offs with lower economy but much higher performance than the insight due to more power, wider tires (the insight had 165's) and a better suspension but it is a performance oriented hybrid.
For comparison sake, a 2000 Civic EX MSRP was $16,8, a 2010 is $19,5. If one were to have an updated insight coupe, I think you could probably expect the MSRP to be around 22K
Part of the appeal of the CR-Z is it's price point so while lightweight materials are used when possible, most of the time, they cost more so there will always be a tradeoff between weight and price. If everything were taken into consideration (price inflation, additional safety features, etc...) one could argue the CR-Z is the cheapest Hybrid Honda has ever produced... (although it is the same MSRP as he current insight) which is where honda wants to be.
As for he extras, (bluetooth, satnav) I was looking more at the features but things like side curtain Airbags subwoofers, amplifiers, etc... all add weight. My Factory integra stereo was probably 3lbs all included (speakers HU, etc...) but I'm sure my fit's weighs more. and add subwoofers etc... and you've got even more weight.
~SB
Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,462
From: Vermont
Nobody is questioning that the straight line performance is underwhelming...we pretty much established that back on page 3. This horse is dead.
The beauty of honda is not the rock you get on the showroom floor...instead it's the diamond just beneath the surface that is revealed with aftermarket support. Look at the K20z3...a 2.0 liter engine capable of 230+ hp with bolt ons....even more with head work. The sky is the limit so far with the k motor...I have even seen 1,000 hp produced with forced induction. 1,000 hp with a fawking 4 cylinder!!!!!
I think the potential is there for the CR-z...imagine swapping in a larger electric motor for greater torque gains. And later a supercharger for more hp.
Honda is showing us the future...we just have to adapt.
The beauty of honda is not the rock you get on the showroom floor...instead it's the diamond just beneath the surface that is revealed with aftermarket support. Look at the K20z3...a 2.0 liter engine capable of 230+ hp with bolt ons....even more with head work. The sky is the limit so far with the k motor...I have even seen 1,000 hp produced with forced induction. 1,000 hp with a fawking 4 cylinder!!!!!
I think the potential is there for the CR-z...imagine swapping in a larger electric motor for greater torque gains. And later a supercharger for more hp.
Honda is showing us the future...we just have to adapt.
~SB
Banned
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,346
From: Small Town WI
Nobody is questioning that the straight line performance is underwhelming...we pretty much established that back on page 3. This horse is dead.
The beauty of honda is not the rock you get on the showroom floor...instead it's the diamond just beneath the surface that is revealed with aftermarket support. Look at the K20z3...a 2.0 liter engine capable of 230+ hp with bolt ons....even more with head work. The sky is the limit so far with the k motor...I have even seen 1,000 hp produced with forced induction. 1,000 hp with a fawking 4 cylinder!!!!!
I think the potential is there for the CR-z...imagine swapping in a larger electric motor for greater torque gains. And later a supercharger for more hp.
Honda is showing us the future...we just have to adapt.
The beauty of honda is not the rock you get on the showroom floor...instead it's the diamond just beneath the surface that is revealed with aftermarket support. Look at the K20z3...a 2.0 liter engine capable of 230+ hp with bolt ons....even more with head work. The sky is the limit so far with the k motor...I have even seen 1,000 hp produced with forced induction. 1,000 hp with a fawking 4 cylinder!!!!!
I think the potential is there for the CR-z...imagine swapping in a larger electric motor for greater torque gains. And later a supercharger for more hp.
Honda is showing us the future...we just have to adapt.
Member
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,316
From: Minnesota
It'd be more helpful to see an exploded diagram because it's probably not as integrated as you might think. It can't be...if we are to assume it's the same old L15a rebadged with different letters.
Member
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,316
From: Minnesota
Never say never....I'm sure this will be one of the primary goals for extracting more performance eventually. The aftermarket industry may be slow to adapt, but the performance of electric is undeniable...look at the Tesla roadster.
Again, Honda is showing us the future with hybrid assist. Honda 4 cylinders will finally have the one thing they've always been lacking.....TORQUE.
Caught this on the CR-z forums talking about swapping the civic hybrid electric motor with the CR-Z hybrid motor...
source: HCH + CR-Z engine - Honda CRZ Forum: Honda CR-Z Hybrid Car Forums
Again, Honda is showing us the future with hybrid assist. Honda 4 cylinders will finally have the one thing they've always been lacking.....TORQUE.
Caught this on the CR-z forums talking about swapping the civic hybrid electric motor with the CR-Z hybrid motor...
source: HCH + CR-Z engine - Honda CRZ Forum: Honda CR-Z Hybrid Car Forums
Originally Posted by CR-Z forums
Civic Hybrid
15 KW motor
20hp / 76lb-ft
width - 70mm
CR-Z Hybrid
10 KW motor
13hp / 58lb-ft
width - TBA
i think it would be safe to say that if you swap the electric motor from the HCH to the CR-Z that would give it total specs of around:
CR-Z + 15 KW motor
129hp / 146lb-ft
versus the current numbers of:
CR-Z
122hp / 128lb-ft
i believe doing this alone should improve gas mileage with the added assist from the electric motor... the only thing slowing something like this swap down would be the ecu/electrical aspects...
(this is assuming the horsepower/torque come in around the same rpm)
15 KW motor
20hp / 76lb-ft
width - 70mm
CR-Z Hybrid
10 KW motor
13hp / 58lb-ft
width - TBA
i think it would be safe to say that if you swap the electric motor from the HCH to the CR-Z that would give it total specs of around:
CR-Z + 15 KW motor
129hp / 146lb-ft
versus the current numbers of:
CR-Z
122hp / 128lb-ft
i believe doing this alone should improve gas mileage with the added assist from the electric motor... the only thing slowing something like this swap down would be the ecu/electrical aspects...
(this is assuming the horsepower/torque come in around the same rpm)
Member
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 293
From: Montréal, Québec
The fit is more comfortable than the economy car of "back in the day" and is more comfortable than many other cars even on the road today. It's not luxurious but remember, hondas have always been sportier so to find a seat that is more comfortable (cushy) than a toyota in the same class will be difficult, but for what it is, the fit has decent bolstering and the ergonomics are good (another comfort feature).
As for the Gen1 Insight, it's a 10 year old car. Just because it was produced up until 5 years ago doesn't make the technology in the vehicle or the design/safety really any newer. My Integra GS-R was only 7 years old when I traded it but the technology in the engine and safety measures were over 14 years old. (the car sold for 8 years without a FMC). also the insight had an MSRP of just under $19K (19,3 for '06) while 10 years later, a much more advanced vehicle (CR-Z) is just under $20K Granted, it has some trade-offs with lower economy but much higher performance than the insight due to more power, wider tires (the insight had 165's) and a better suspension but it is a performance oriented hybrid.
For comparison sake, a 2000 Civic EX MSRP was $16,8, a 2010 is $19,5. If one were to have an updated insight coupe, I think you could probably expect the MSRP to be around 22K
Part of the appeal of the CR-Z is it's price point so while lightweight materials are used when possible, most of the time, they cost more so there will always be a tradeoff between weight and price. If everything were taken into consideration (price inflation, additional safety features, etc...) one could argue the CR-Z is the cheapest Hybrid Honda has ever produced... (although it is the same MSRP as he current insight) which is where honda wants to be.
As for he extras, (bluetooth, satnav) I was looking more at the features but things like side curtain Airbags subwoofers, amplifiers, etc... all add weight. My Factory integra stereo was probably 3lbs all included (speakers HU, etc...) but I'm sure my fit's weighs more. and add subwoofers etc... and you've got even more weight.
~SB
As for the Gen1 Insight, it's a 10 year old car. Just because it was produced up until 5 years ago doesn't make the technology in the vehicle or the design/safety really any newer. My Integra GS-R was only 7 years old when I traded it but the technology in the engine and safety measures were over 14 years old. (the car sold for 8 years without a FMC). also the insight had an MSRP of just under $19K (19,3 for '06) while 10 years later, a much more advanced vehicle (CR-Z) is just under $20K Granted, it has some trade-offs with lower economy but much higher performance than the insight due to more power, wider tires (the insight had 165's) and a better suspension but it is a performance oriented hybrid.
For comparison sake, a 2000 Civic EX MSRP was $16,8, a 2010 is $19,5. If one were to have an updated insight coupe, I think you could probably expect the MSRP to be around 22K
Part of the appeal of the CR-Z is it's price point so while lightweight materials are used when possible, most of the time, they cost more so there will always be a tradeoff between weight and price. If everything were taken into consideration (price inflation, additional safety features, etc...) one could argue the CR-Z is the cheapest Hybrid Honda has ever produced... (although it is the same MSRP as he current insight) which is where honda wants to be.
As for he extras, (bluetooth, satnav) I was looking more at the features but things like side curtain Airbags subwoofers, amplifiers, etc... all add weight. My Factory integra stereo was probably 3lbs all included (speakers HU, etc...) but I'm sure my fit's weighs more. and add subwoofers etc... and you've got even more weight.
~SB
And with the crz, things are hald done. It's not as "futuristic" as the insight mk1, and by far less fuel efficient, but it's not a sport car either, since it's probably slower than a base model civic. They could have done a small 2 seater with only a gasoline engine, that would have been funnier to drive, cheaper, as cheap on gas, or a true sport car that would have replaced the s2k. I would be ready to pay for one of these, but not for a (ugly) 2 seater civic hybrid. And really the electric engine (50% less strong than on the civic refering to the last post) makes it the cheapest hybrid maybe, but also the less efficient.
And on our base DX cdm fit, there are only two small speakers, I don't think it's really heavy. But safety adds a good 100kg for sure.
Are you saying those that do drive the CR-Z are going to make other people laugh, but if Honda brought out a small 2 seater with just a petrol powerplant and no electric motor assist, people would be rolling all over the floor laughing at them?
:P I'm kidding, but you did use the word funnier.
:P I'm kidding, but you did use the word funnier.
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,371
From: NC USA
What you wanted was published information that simply isn't published. In racing, as in manufacturing, anything of real importance is confidential. SAE publications aren't in that catagory.
In perusing my notebooks I did find one reference to a chassis that was helped by added braces and welding: Camaro. My notes from then (>20 yrs ago) indicated they earned the 'flexible flyer' label so handily that bracing was mandatory, not only the body shell but the unibody underneath. There were drawings on the details: shape and locations. There was even an estimate of the added weight: 175 lb. But then Camaros had over 300 hp and apparently didn't weigh over 3000 lb to begin with.
And no, you don't get to see my notebooks either. Get your own.
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,371
From: NC USA
Nice, like that engine. I want a bigger internal combustion engine and NO CHANGE in the 13 hp electriuc motor. I want GO when wanted and good economy when cruising. Thats the meaning of CRX. The 1.8 will fit easilyfor the 1500 I suspect. If not turbo the 1.5.
but you should read about Hyundai's'more efficient' hybrid Sonata. Page 86, C&D september. When Hyundai masters suspensions they will become formidable contenders ('Hyundai Sundae ..." on you tube). How's that for reference?
Last edited by mahout; Aug 5, 2010 at 07:55 AM.
Member
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,316
From: Minnesota
Found this video of a CR-Z apparently Auto-X'ing
I think this is the video you are trying to link.
YouTube - ‪HONDA CR-Z?6MT?????‬‎
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,371
From: NC USA
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?
Sam Mitani's testing for Road&Track yielded the following
page 2 - 2011 Honda CR-Z Specifications - Road Test
By Sam Mitani / Photos by Koichi Ohtani
April 16, 2010
2011 Honda CR-Z
List Price est. $20,000 Curb weight est. 2560 lb. Weight Distribution 62/38 Wheelbase 95.8 in. Length 160.6 in. Width 68.5 in. Height 54.9 in. ENGINE
Type alum. block & heads, dohc 4-valve/cyl inline-4 Bore x stroke 73.0 x 89.4 mm Compression ratio 10.4:1 Horsepower (gasoline engine) 111 bhp @ 6000 rpm (combined w/ elect. motor) 122 bhp @ 6000 rpm Torque (gasoline engine) 106 lb.-ft. @ 4800 rpm (combined w/ elect. motor) 128 lb.-ft. @ 1500 rpm Fuel injection elect. seq port Recommended fuel unleaded Transmission CVT CHASSIS & BODY
Layout front engine/front drive Body/frame unit steel Brakes, f/r vented disc/disc, ABS Wheels cast alloy, 16 x 6J Tires 195/55R-16 Steering rack & pinion, elec. pwr assist Suspension f/r MacPherson struts, tube shocks, coil springs, anti-roll bar/H-shaped torsion beam, tube shocks, coil springs FUEL ECONOMY
City/Highway est 36/38 mpg Fuel capacity 10.5 gal PERFORMANCE
0-60 mph 10.5 sec 0-100 mph 30.0 sec ¼-mile, sec 17.6 sec @ 80.1 mph
These numbers closely match the Fit. No reasoin to think the CRZ MT will be much different from the Fit MT..
Last test fot Fit in R&T was 04-07 and that had MT doing 9.0 to 60 aand 27.6 to 100 so the CRZ should be pretty close.
PS anything slower than 15 sec 60 to 100 is a slowpoke. A slug is 20 sec so Fit escapes slug catagory. cheers.
Last edited by mahout; Aug 5, 2010 at 07:22 PM.