Plus the 9.6 sec 0-60 (and 10.0 5-60) confirms my suspicions that the Fit is much quicker. I've been saying that the Fit feels to have considerably more torque. Plus it handles better.

Note the 0.85g from the same Dunlop 7000s...the press has only tested the Fit with the touring Bridgestones rather than the High Performance Dunlops, and again this 0.85g figure confirms that the Dunlops pull much harder. Now I wonder what they would pull on the Fit. AT LEAST 0.85g.

Yet another...the 36 mpg avg they recorded is only 2 mpg better than the last Fit they tested.

I like the CR-Z, but it's just too much of a paradox and doesn't make sense compared with say the Insight or the Fit, or a Mazda 3 for that matter.

 

How does it not make sense? Look at the 3 cars you just mentioned and comparing to, they are completely different segments to the CR-Z overall. So in that regard, yes it doesn't make sense to compare to other cars. Honda is trying something new and so far it is working as they are selling and have sold a good number of CR-Z already. It will never sell in the number of Fits sold, not here in Japan at least, but it does have a market. I don't really remember people talking about the CR-X as such when it was released and saying it made no sense. Instead of people badgering on about the car, be thankful Honda took this step, because all it is going to do is make other car makers follow suit and it will only improve in the future. I still believe Honda needs to drop the hybrid moniker though and just call it IMA and get away from people wanting to compare it to Toyboat's system when they are so vastly different they really can not be compared.

 

Wait, did you actually take the CRZ for a test drive

 

Yes. I drove both the MT and CVT CR-Zs.

The car is a paradox and doesn't make sense compared to other cars in its price range, or even the Fit.

 

And does it make sense to have Coca~Cola, Pepsi, RC and some generic colas out on the market for the masses to purchase?

:P That's way out there, but if it wasn't done (CR-Z), then the market may never have gotten started. It may not go past the CR-Z, but people should be applauding Honda for taking that step versus calling the car a failure or doesn't make sense compared to other cars that cost the same or less.

Don't get me wrong, I wish they would of released it with at least 150ps and including the IMA as well. Honda's system is not as much a weight penalty like the Toyboat system and is so much simpler in design and function that the increase in weight is there, but not so drastic. Would it sell in even greater numbers if Honda released it with just an IC engine, probably, but then what would really be the point of it? It's just another cola on the market at that point. This is something different, not just a slightly different taste. It's a whole new market. Only time will tell if it is actually embraced and more and more cars have some sort of assist mechanism to futher performance.

You test drove, but did you actually DRIVE, to say the Fit handles better than the CR-Z, I am going to have to say I slightly disagree from first hand viewing of both on circuit and not just taking a test drive from a dealer or even a drive day sponsored by a dealer. I won't comment further on that though until I have the actual chance to toss one around on a circuit. The suspension settings (damper and rebound) are much better, the front lower aluminum arms are much stronger and have less flex of the stamped steel items on the Fit. Has a much much better CoG compared to the Fit. I have a lot of Fun in my Fit and moreso with removing some weight, but that same principle could be applied to the CR-Z and it would make it that much more fun as well.

I just wish people would try to see past the horizon line a little bit.

 

No, the Fit handles better, period. It's steering is better too, so is the shifter.

People don't have to applaud Honda just because they came out with a new hybrid concept. If the car is paradoxical, it's hard to figure out and people can make their own judgements about it. Telling them how to feel is fascist.

 

You win, you win, all the shops here in Japan I guess are wrong about the handling between the 2 vehicles. Though they all sure seem to be jumping all over it because they can see past the horizon line and see this as just a beginning of things to come in the future.

Is the CR-Z perfect, hell no, but what is perfect in this world? Things need to start somewhere and evolve from that start. What is the paradox for you concerning the CR-Z and other cars you have compared it to or even cars you haven't compared to? Honest question. It's in its own new segment. Remember people used to think the world was flat and never traversed but so far from the coast line for fear of falling off the side.

 

 

 

 

cr-z aftermarket parts are already flooding

 

I think one of the reasons there's more aftermarket support is because Honda has been aggressive in supporting them. I'm not sure if Honda was that aggressive with the GD Fit. At least that's what I see.

 

There have been a couple of tests on the CRZ, R&T or C&D but the best one is on GRM this month where they compare a CRX with the CRZ.
Generally the CRZ and Fit test 0-60 in 8.5 sec manual and 10.5 auto with the CRZ being a trifle quicker to quarter mile.
If you are interested in a CRZ the inventory is in excess of 70 days, quite high for Hondas so you may get a deal. But don't expect much better performance than a Fit mostly due to the extra weight.
Its cute but no CRZ Si.

 

Did you mean to say it's no CR-X Si? Well in that regard, even the North American Si was no Si. :P

 

Actually, the Fit is much faster than the CR-Z. 0-60 in 8.3 by both Car and Driver and Motor Trend, while the CR-Z did it in 9.6 in Car and Driver's latest test.

 

thought the new mazda's have that stupid ugly grin, these new honda's do too...

 

In Honda lingo for US, the addition of Si to the base dsignation indicated the fastester version of the vehicle. adding SiR meant really up the performance level but only in Japan or by Honda nuts who made their own. I wish GRM had tested the CRX and CRZ at VIR on equal tires instead of a gokart track.
In this instance Honda marketing made a bad decision to not start with a CRZ-Si version and next year add a SiR version.
Typically, I expected a turbocharged or supercharged model 1500 with 150 hp at least. The 13 hp electric motor is fine because its intent is steady state economy where it does most of the work. Like all electric motors maximum torque is generated at the lowest rpm.
The Sir version should be a 2 liter minimum 180hp engine with a 20 hp electric motor. If you're going to claim a hybrid sports car it needs to meet the billing. A 2 seater Fit ain't it.
Take a good look at Porsche's hybrid: top-of-chart, not based on the base Boxster.

 

Why? When was the last time you saw a factory turbocharged or supercharged Honda? To expect this from an automobile manufacturer known particularly for its NA engines is ridiculous. (I'm not including the Acura RDX here...that is a turbocharged V6 SUV).


Are you really gonna compare a Porsche to a Honda??...seriously?!?


There is a rumor of a Type R version of the CRZ, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

Just fyi RDX is a turbocharged 2.3L i-4 not 6.

 

Thanks...I remembered there was something weird about that engine. I guess it's a destroked 2.4 liter.