I'm thinking what we'll eventually see, at the very least, is a sedan version of the CR-Z here and probably a 4 door fastback crossover. Toyota's kicking Honda's butt in Prius vs. Civic Hybrid sales, but not because the Civic is an inferior car. It's actually the better of the two now that Toyota can't inflate it's mileage (it was 60mpg when inflated, dropped to 50mpg before the last EPA testing changes and is now listed at 45mpg, now the same as the Civic hybrid...cars just don't drop 15mpg with no significant changes for no reason). Toyota does a far better job marketing it's car and making the world feel like they're evil for driving a gasoline powered vehicle. Now Toyota's considering making the Prius its own brand. It would certainly behoove Honda to do this as well and I'm actually thinking this may happen. I think what we'll get with the dedicated hybrid is almost a Honda brand-offshoot, similar in styling to the chinese car that was unveiled in Beijing. That car is a non-production based design study for a Scion-like brand under Honda, which is why I think it'd work better for Honda's dedicated hybrid. Or maybe they'll want to take the design a different direction, but either way, I'd love to see the LiNian concepts crossover shape, minus the Fiesta/Verve gaping maw, offered as a hybrid. I'm not sold on hybrids at all, but I think it'd be a great alternative to what's available now. Europe still gets cars like the FR-V that maximize space and practicality in a relatively small footprint, with it's 3 +3 seating. Would be nice to see something available here for small families, but this is probably wishful thinking.

On another note, you'll also notice Honda's marketing has changed as well. Looks like there's a bit of turn around going on.

 

Which is exactly why I doubt the CR-Z will make it here. It'd be like trying to offer a more stylish Insight. Not quite as practical as a hybrid, given the extra cost over a gasoline version. If Honda were to offer an entry level coupe styled hatch, they'd want to keep it affordable. While their IMA isn't THAT expensive, especially as the technology has progressed, it still, IMHO, makes more business sense to build a gas-powered car alongside the Fit as sportier alternative to the Fit to attract first time buyers and people looking for fun, efficient and somewhat practical second drivers. There are a crapload of people who owned first and second gen CR-Xs that would buy another one in a heartbeat. And given the economy for at least the next year and a half, making something affordable AND efficient (fun-to-drive is a given with Honda), they'd be in a far better position than they would offering some brand new car with no history and no name. People want the CR-X because it resonates with them. Bringing it back to the OPs original question, the Fit doesn't do that just yet. It may someday, but not to the degree the CR-X--especially a new CR-X that carries on the tradition of the old car--could.

Just my .02.

 

The CR-Z looks like a beefier, more futuristic version of the Integra to me
but I like it

 

As a racer of CRX in IMSA and SCCA and owner of a CRX SiR and Fit Sport there is no way a Fit will be an icon like the CRX. Besides the 'next' CRX is on its way - the CRZ.
Comparing a Fit to a CRX is like comparing a Minivan to a Corvette. At VIR my CRX leaves my FIT so fast its ridiculous. Gas mileage isn't that different either. And my Fit won't carry much more stuff than my CRX will; the difference is the height. The CRX SiR gets 130, the Fit won't break 100.
That said, the Fit isn't an extension of the CRX; it is however a real world best g-getter (go get this, go get that ...)
The CRZ was a show car to gage the market for a CRX treplacement competition to the Subaru/Toyota sports car. The CRZ is planned as a plug-in hybrid to show off high powered small sports car with the best fuel economy just as the original CRX. That will take the CRX/Z to new heights of performance just as the CRX did. I look for it by 2010.
PS so the CRZ is bigger; so I am I so they can get me in it. When you see specs in SAE it ain't far off.

 

Out of curiosity, is there anywhere Honda said the CR-Z is the CR-X? I'm still not convinced and I've not yet seen it come from the horses mouth.

 

As an owner of 3 "CRX's" in my past Ill be the first to say that your comment here boarders on ridiculous. I’m glad you are an enthusiastically CRX owner but my Fit more than any other car I have owned is more CRX like then any other. It defiantly has the spirit of the CRX is just about every way.

If Honda threw the 2.0 liter engine in the Fit to compensate for its weight, you would be singing a new tune about the Fit. Ialso have a lot of track time on my Honda's and was a member of SCCA for quite a while.

 

LOL a CR-Y???

Looks too much like "cry" and would you wanna "cry" in public?

Also folks are forgetting about the CRX model HF--the gutless wonder. Not much under the hood but it looked fast and got me to and from college with a beginning 45mpg that slowly dwindled down to 30 mpg in its later years.

Yup, that was the last Honda I owned (got a Mazda B2300 Ranger knock-off then a Toyota Tacoma) and the Fit reminds me a lot of my old CRX 'cept it has a lil bit o' power.

 

I will say we own many CRX's and I never would have said this before, but NOTHING can be as great as those cars! I am excited about my fit, but those CRX's are AMAZING!! 17 years later they run just as good as they did the day they came out!

 

I agree with you. The most Cr-x like honda ever is the Fit. I am not saying they are the same but is the closest we have now. I had a CRX ...and the Fit is the only honda that makes me remember it.

 

I still have my 1990 CRX Si. I will never part with it. I do not need a coffin. They can bury me in it when I die. It won't win any beauty contest, but it will give serious sport cars some good spanking even with it's original SOHC engine. It is tweaked NA, 9500rpm screamer with 6.5lb flywheel and maxed out suspension. Interior was pristine, but I am striping it for track only. With 008 RS Yokohama's it spanked bikes on Mulholland 15 years ago. Cars, well no need talking about those, none managed to keep up. There is no substitute for light weight going into turns. I blasted canyons at 2am weekly back then. Topanga Canyon had actual speed display before a very bad corner. While others aimed to post triple digits there, I aimed to max out top speed. I was such an idiot back then! Law enforcement tried to keep up at night. They lost some vehicles in the process. ROFL! Made local newspaper seeking anybody that could identify it. Yeah, I know, it was STUPID! What do you expect from a teenager! Some picked up drugs, some guns, some guitars, some cars!

Even with 19" wheels CR-Z itself looks huge! They should not exceed current Civic Coupe proportions. They need to stay with 16" wheels for light weight, 17" at the max. Sacrifice fancy stereo, make A/C an option and add some Brembo's! Put barely legal DOT approved racing tires as an option. That car needs to be as small as possible as the original, light and pack a punch with the engine suspension and fully functional aerodynamics. Even maybe flat bottom with rear diffuser. That car needs to go from showroom floor to a testing track and beat Civic Type R by 2 sec. on a test track. Smaller, lighter, with better suspension, killer brakes and fully functional aerodynamics I do not see why it would not be able to!
They do not need to reinvent the wheel with it! Just take original CRX and bring it to minimal 2009 standards of safety, performance and comfort.
They need to approach it with "keep it simple stupid" instead of stuffing it with 10 cup holders!
They need to keep seating position, visibility, forward tilted dash for roominess feel, hatch for ton of cargo space, keep it a two seater only, suede high bolstered manually adjustable seats, xenon projector headlights, LED tails and stuff it with Si's 200hp engine and 6-speed manual tranny. Maybe even turbo RDX lump!
They need to design it from inside out! Back to basics baby! Less is more! Also lighter! Forget about this beam rear suspension-give us back double wishbone front and rear suspension for ultimate uncompromising handling. Save money, no exotic materials, just minimalistic approach.
There is so many of us that were teenagers 18-20 years ago that would spend $20K on retro-CRX in a heart beat! Actually, I would spend $30K on a new CRX if done right rather than on a Mugen Civic. Don't get me wrong it is a nice car, but it is an Si Civic with a pretty dress and new high heel shoes! I might even sell my original CRX to make a room in the garage for a new CRX if it is done right! Probably not - I'd have both!

Retro is "in" for quite some time in auto industry. CRX is Honda's ticket. Unlike other manufacturers that had to "design" all they have to do is go to basics of pure mechanical, less is more, 100% driver's car.

That is it. I got it off my chest!

Ivan

p.s. I know, I know, save your breath, I am entitled to my dream.

 

Ironically, you speak of small and lightweight, but the things you talked about (K-series engine and transmission, xenon headlights, brembo brakes) all add weight, not to mention cost. None of that would ever happen. It is Honda after all.

 

That's because you own the current model. I'm a potential Fit buyer and I really like the improvement they made on the new Fit so I'm waiting to see how that car is compared to the current model before buying one.

A lot of people on different car forums are like you who dislike the new model because it's not the same anymore. Doesn't mean it's better or worse.

 

The CR-Z will be revolutionary like the old CRX, it'll be the only fun/sporty hybrid out there. I'm sure Honda will be sure to cater it to the enthusiast (of the green generation) since it will be a 2 door 2 seat hatch. I on the other hand would love to buy one if they make a 4 door version.

 

I have not seen any direct quotes from Honda plp saying that "The CR-Z is the new CR-X" but many of us are using context and visual clues to deduct that it is planned to be the successor.

How well that will be done is up for debate...

 

Someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC, there are 2 rear buckets in the CR-Z concept. I think it's intended to be a 4-seater. Not much point if Europe is it's main target for a 2 seat hatchback nowadays.

 

I see bukkets

 

That's cool, from the outside it looks like a 2 seater only. Glad they are doing that but I would still want 4 doors vs 2 doors. I don’t' want people climbing in and out of the back, we are too old for that.

 

Another.


And I know what you mean about being too old to climb into the back. lol

Anybody else think those front seats look like slightly more aggressive Fit seats? They might not even be more bolstered. But they look like 09 Fit seats. I love this view btw. This is a place of work. If your work includes canyon carving and auto-Xing

 

Those actually look like suspension seats, and if they are -they are really comfortable. No extra bolstering needed

 

Agreed, but that is a "good weight" to add, don't you think? I do not think anybody would mind. There is so many other things that car can do without.
Fit is nearly 400lbs more than 1990 CRX Si. I think that a lot of weight can be removed just by loosing rear doors. I doubt that Fit's rear beam suspension weights much less than CRX's read double wishbone, if at all.
Keep in mind that doors on the CRX were ridiculously heavy, too. Glass can be thinner these days. Glass lamination advanced over the years. Engineering advanced quite a bit for the last 20 years in general. So did software and knowledge in structural strengths of materials. Cars are being bonded with special epoxies more and more rather than welding. Multiple thinner, lighter sheets are stronger than single heavy thick ones.
Again, it has to be minimalistic, spartan, less is more, keep it simple stupid, engineering effort. Some early CRX's had optional radio's. A/C was optional, too. Why not give it the same approach?

I believe that if there is a will, they will find the way.

Beside,
Will it cost more? Sure it will! Factor in inflation since 1990, increased cost of labor and manufacturing in general, down spiraling value of dollar,... Don't you think that 1990 CRX would cost easily just as much as Fit if not more to manufacture today? Still, taking all the new technology in the Fit into consideration, I think that competition gives us, the consumer, a much "better" vehicles for the money these days.

I believe that if there is a will, they will find the way to bring a new CRX to market as long as they can make profit selling it.
Who better to make a profit out of a small, subcompact car than a Honda?!
Remember 70's and early 80's? Who made the name for themselves in US when gasoline prices skyrocketed? Honda did!
Have faith!

Ivan