When the news about the Honda CR-Z first came out many years ago, I was happy to see Honda release what appeared to be the next CRX, although I don't understand why they changed the name. Chevy doesn't change the name of the Camaro after they re-released it do they? I guess Honda's addition of a hybrid power-train had to be the main reason for the name change :( I didn't really like the idea of Honda turning the CRX into a hybrid at first. But then I thought it's smaller than a Prius, and they could use a smaller engine thus possibly get 100 MPG But after looking at the latest stats in Motor Trend, it's not even going to better the Prius MPG. Its performance won't worry somebody driving a GTI either So what's the point of it? Motor Trend pretty much called it a "poor man's Tesla" even if it's not a pure electric like the Tesla. All I can do here is just shake my head and wonder what Honda was thinking when they originally designed this car? It doesn't even make me regret 1 bit that I bought a more practical Fit that almost gets the same MPG even if it's not a Hybrid. Thank God I'll never have to worry about replacing the expensive CR-Z battery pack either :)

 

The point is a small fuel efficient car that's fun to drive. It's not meant to race. Neither was the original CRX.

Plus the numbers for MPG are for the normal mode not the eco mode and not with someone who has good driving habits. Those number would be much better.

 

There's already a thread on the CR-Z, no need to start a new one.

As for me, I think although the specs are pretty shitty and unwelcome to many, the car itself is looking better every time I look at it. I want to take one for a test drive right now so bad!

 

True but I'm disappointed that even the old CRX HF betters the CRZ's MPG. And all Honda did on the old CRX HF was keep it simple, unlike the CRZ. It's too bad Honda didn't try keeping it simple this time around too. I wonder if Honda will ever build a car for the US that weighs less than 2,000 pounds like the CRX did?

 

arguing about the crz's weight vs the original crx is a moot point. with the crz you get crumple zones, driver/passenger air bags, curtain side air bags, abs, power windows, power locks, etc... the crx didn't even come with a driver side air bag... to the average car buyer these things are important.

if people are going to bash the crz about anything it should be it's price, 21k base price?? no thanks... 21k should have been the top of the line model. i'll get in line for an ft86 before dropping that much coin on a "fun" hybrid.

 

That, I understand, especially since I owned a 1986 CRX Si and now own the Fit with 6 airbags plus other safety gadgets I feel aren't necessary. It's not that I don't believe in safety. I just prefer active versus passive safety, which is why I felt safe in my old CRX. Anyhow since the CRX days, a lot more aluminum, plastic, carbon fiber and other weight saving materials have come into use, even if many of them are not cheap. I'd really like to see Honda make something as bare-bones by today's standards as the CRX HF was not too long ago. Removing the hybrid power-train would be a good start. I'm actually surprised Honda doesn't give you the option of a non-hybrid CRZ. I haven't heard of that option yet, in other countries too

 

Why would they offer a non-hybrid version of the CR-Z? The whole point of the CR-Z is a sporty hybrid alternative for some people that don't need rear seating (the rear seats are pretty pointless on the model here).

Granted it is not for everyone, but neither was the CR-X. It most likely is still going to sell and only time will tell how many do actually sell and if it was at all a worthwhile move for Honda to produce.

 

i dont know if the crz will sell. it doesn't have any compelling reasons to do so. that its marketing differentiates it as a fun hybrid doesn't change the fact that it will be slow and seat only two. why not buy a miata or an s2000 for less money, similar mpg, and rwd?

 

Well the first time I saw it at the dealer there was a line just to view it up close. Will that translate into sales of it, maybe and maybe not, but it might still translate into sales for Honda. This is Honda's overall goal...selling more vehicles.

No way the S2000 comes close in MPG. I averaged like 21mpg in mine and the highest I ever got was about 24mpg. Now mind you this was on Guam without any expressways or anything. The CR-Z probably won't even get that low if run in sport mode full time. It is being advertised in normal mode using the newest Japanese measuring standard at 22.5 km/l which translates to 52.7 mpg. The old Japanese standard is rated at 25 km/l or 58.6 mpg. The current Fit RS in MT is rated at 17.2 km/l (40.3mpg) in the old standard and the new standard is like 15 km/l (35.2mpg). So far with my heavy foot after 2700km I am averaging right at 30mpg, but usually get about 25~27mpg because here it is usually bumper to bumper city driving. I'm sure I could easily average much more if I set the TC to E mode, but it is pretty much always set to S7 as I prefer the acceleration (which is still not grand) versus the feeling of trying to get out of quicksand. :)

Also about less money, only if buying used. You can't really compare used and new vehicles, because more times than not a used car is going to cost less than a new car (bar 1 of the 3 I would buy used, see below). I don't know about you, but I don't plan on buying used cars when I am shopping for new cars. The only used car I will ever buy is another 5R Teggy, NA2 NS-X or another Snisen. Have had 2 of those 3 and they were also purchased new.

Finally, the US is not the center of the universe. :) There are other markets where the car will be sold. Like I said, it is generating business at the dealers here. Went back to 2 dealers yesterday, 1 to order some stuff and the other for a free check-up and both had people inquiring about the CR-Z.

 

Not every accident can be avoided or seen. That's when those passive systems will come in handy.
I don't think there are enough customers that want something barebone to justify Honda building something for them.
I for one want the safety stuffs and other convenient things(maybe on the hydrid system).
It's hard to build a car with all these airbags, features, etc. and make it weigh like a car made many years ago. If they start using aluminum/carbon then the price go up and customers don't want to pay that much.
There're pics in the link. Not that bad of a car but let see how much it cost.
Japanese Owner Pictures - Honda-Tech

 

wow, i didn't know that the s2000 got such horrible mileage. that's pretty bad for a modern NA 4 cyl.

my point more is this - if you're getting a two seat car that can't move a lot of stuff, are you getting the car for fun or for economy? obviously, it's not for practicality. more likely, it's for fun. so why not get a legit car, like a miata or an s2000, for THOUSANDS of dollars less?

the crz makes no sense. it's exciting because it's new. even minivans and trucks can be exciting when new.

 

who ever said the s2k was an economy car? naturally aspirated, 100hp/litre, 4cyl., with a 9k redline...

i could have had a boosted k20 street/track ej civic for thousands less than my gd but that doesn't come with a warranty, it's not as reliable, not nearly as safe, not comfortable, and [personally] i have no use for 300hp in a daily driver.

safety and piece of mind matter to some people. if you don't like the crz, that's fine. if you loathe it, that's fine too. but there's no point in trying to convince everybody else to hate it

 

horrible? 24mph is DAMN good for the 2nd Highest HP/L production motor EVER only behind the latest Ferrari 458. Until a year ago it head the title of Highest HP/L production motor up until that point. You can even come close to 240HP from a NA 2.0L for under anywhere near 40k.

Say I drive 45min to an hour everyday to and from work, ALONE by myself. Im not married and have no kids. Most I ever carry is a bag or two with my girlfriend in the passenger seat to dinner or the park etc. Why do I need a car to fit a 50" tv in it or 5kids? Whats not practical about 50-60MPG which im 100% positive this car will get on the highway, AND when i get off the highway to the twisty bits of road I can have some fun. why is this a stupid idea?

A miata is more legit then the CRZ? 2 seater, 110WHP, 30MPG? why or how is this any better then the CRZ? Just as slow if not slower and less mpg's with WAY less interior space.

And you say thousands less. You cant buy a s2k new and new NC miata is certainly more then the CRZ will be. You cant compare a used car to a new car. That like saying why would you buy a new evo for 40k when you can buy a used evo for 15k and be just as fast.

Before you say the CRZ makes know sense make sure your points make some sense first

 

True even though I understand many of us throw out ration when buying cars. I can't really afford to do much of that though. That's why when I start taking everything into account the CRZ has to offer, I don't believe it's worth spending the $24,000 Motor Trend had it priced at. I'd rather blow my $$$ on a less emotional Fit in this case. It's too bad Honda didn't try making the CRZ more of a 2 seater Fit, which would hopefully mean more MPG's than the Fit, lower price, less weight and less utility too. I could make the less utility sacrifice if Honda could pull that off.

 

True but so many people were ignoring one of the best forms of passive safety (seat belts) to begin with. Which is why Uncle Sam required manufacturers to install airbags. Some $$$ and weight could have been saved there if that never happened. Although other unseen safety features do add pounds to automobiles now. And in cases such as the new Porsche Boxster Spyder, manufacturers are charging more $$$ for a lighter car now. 2011 Porsche Boxster Spyder - First Drive Review - Auto Reviews - Car and Driver

 

Seatbelts are definitely a necessity but so are airbags. I used to think airbags wasn't needed due to drivers using seatbelts. After seeing crash test vids where dummies head still struck the steering wheel even with seatbelt, I change my mind. Even more important are side airbags where there're so little to protect you that anything else is even more important.

I live in California and there're a zillions Prius. I almost always see them with only the driver. At the most with one passenger. There's obviously a market for a 2 seats hydrid. Not all hydrids are own by family or people that need to carry a lot of passengers.

 

here's something - what about a 2.0L motor, turbocharged, on e85, making 452 whp on a real dyno, getting 23.8 mpg. on e85! puts 24mpg in perspective.

i know many will take offense to this, but i say that the miata is the legit fun car for two reasons here: open top, and rear wheel drive.

it's not unfair to compare new and used cars. the same source of cash will pay for either one. it's fair to point out when a new car doesn't represent much of a value, or do anything significantly better than cars that have come before it.

and before you try to discount the points i made, tell me this - why are you so positive about the crz getting 50-60mpg when you have no evidence? your speculation is ironic, so you should "make sure your points make some sense first".

 

isn't that the whole point to internet forums? open discussion?
i don't have an investment in honda, so i have no interest whether folks buy a crz. still, call a spade a spade. with the current info available, there isn't much to be excited about.

 

Turbo charging is the lazy way to make power. I mentioned NA motors. There are many highly educated and experience engine builders (Endyne) whom have states that Honda motors are the best designed production motors hes ever seen. Not hard to slap a turbo on any motor and add fuel.


I will 100% agree with you that a miata is a fantastic car(I build SCCA Spec miata's for a living), I was just pointing out that it has no real advantage performance wise. FWD can be just as fast or faster then RWD allbeit maybe a bit less fun(opinion)

Still dont think its fair to compare used to new but to each his own.

I do have proof!!... have you not seen the official statements by Honda of japan? The car is 100% out and release over there. The CVT gets 25km/L which is about 58MPG and the 6Spd gets 22.5km/L which is 52.9MPG.

Temple of VTEC Rumors and News - All-New CR-Z Hybrid Vehicle Introduced in Japan


It is known that the US EPA ratings are brutal on Hybrids, and are usually low on everyday cars. I used to get 38 with a top of 41mpg highway in my fit when I had it. Much higher then the EPA rating.

 

And about the utility, have you not seen this picture of a CR-Z owner here in Japan...




6 tires and 2 wheels, want to see somebody stuff that into a S2000 or Eunos Roadster. :) I did always shock the grocery baggers when I would load up $200 worth of groceries into the trunk of the Snisen. It was a science or artwork of packaging to make everything fit nicely and not crushing the bread and/or chips. But as far as carrying wheels and tires, that was a no go. I could fit like 1 in the passenger seat and 1 in the boot with the panel removed.

As I also stated, you might be able to compare new and old, but for the person looking to buy a "new" car, why would they consider gettting a used one. Please grasp onto that for even 1 second and realize what we are saying.