Lessee, didn't the old CRZ's years ago get around 50 MPG with a gasoline only engine? -And here we have this "new" baby CRZ hybrid, and it only eeks out 33 MPG average (with a MT), and it requires a ton of special batteries to do it?

Way to go Honda! One step forward, and 300 backward????

My 2010 base model AT Fit gets better MPG, has tons more room and utility, probably handles just as well except in go-kart type cornering, ain't gonna cost me a fortune in eventual battery replacement, and doesn't require special maintenance/repair type services!!

Some of this "hybrid" stuff is starting to get really ridiculous IMO! I thought hybrids were supposed to IMPROVE autos, not make things WORSE! (And lower MPGs, coupled with the additional pollution of battery disposable, makes things A LOT worse IMO!)

Stupidity, absolute, disappointing stupidity from Honda, AFAIC! They must be getting too big, because they appear to be falling into the huge-corporation frozen-mind-thinking of the big 'Merican corp auto makers!
(And they (Honda) also import mostly only battleship-sized, poor MPG, motorcycles into the USA now too, while the rest of the world gets decent 200-500cc high MPG Honda bikes!)

Well, Hundai is coming out with a neat little gasoline-only sport coupe called the Velocity (or sumthin like that?). Projected MPG? -40 MPG! -Hah!!!
(And hopefully some MC company will see the light soon and start exporting lighter, smaller, quicker bikes into the US?)

Disgusted!

 

Browse around and you will find several threads that have exhausted every topic surrounding this car.

 

Yep, I had many of those impressions about the CRZ just looking at it and reading the window sticker at the dealership.

Came away thinking given the price, and for a hybrid, the mediocre gas mileage unless if offered real high end sports car performance why would I purchase it?

Honda who is a leader in Hybrid and alternative car technology has seemed to of stopped swinging for the seats and is happy with flawed or mediocre offerings. You can't always set the benchmark with every product you offer, but you should be at least trying to offer something at class leading or near.

The CRZ is probably one of the sportiest looking hybrids you could purchase...but that's about the only thing it offers.

Not a homerun and given the lukewarm reception of The Insight...Honda needs a homerun- not a base hit.

 

okay, so there are a couple problems with your rant...

1) it was the CRX not Z that got 50mpg back in the day

2) the CRX weighed 2174lbs, it is nearly impossible for carmakers to get a car that light these days b/c of all the safety requirements

3)It is spelled Hyundai not Hundai

4)And lastly, the CRZ is meant to be more sporty than supremely efficient, that is what the Insight and Prius are for, also, if Honda wanted the most mpgs, they wouldn't be using the IMA, they would have a hybrid system like the Prius's...or better yet, they would combine a Diesel with an electric drivetrain to work like the Volt

5)also, we all know from experience with the Fits that the EPA is VERY conservative with their mpg estimates so the CRZ can probably get much higher than a Fit if it is driven correctly.

all these combine to prove that you are pretty narrow minded and are showing "Stupidity, absolute, disappointing stupidity" by ranting like this without getting all your facts straight.

one last note, learn to spell!!!

 

i do not intend to say that the CRZ is the best car or hybrid that is on the market, just that everybody is giving it such a hard time when in reality it is a good car.

we are all entitled to our opinions, so lets not rag on others if they end up buying the CRZ in the mean time lets all have fun :VTEC:ing, okay?

 

This. I think I've heard every point you made since the first day the production model & specs were announced. Honda has been sinking and will keep doing so until they stop selling appliances like Toyota...

 

They own the patent on IMA, and if they were to use a system similar to Toyota's, they will pay a usage rights fee to someone. I think it's a better overall design, and one that will easily surpass the competition as technology develops. It's more simple, and the way I think most engineers would approach adding torque to an IC engine from purely a design standpoint. In the end, I have a lot of Faith in Honda. They are stumbling right now, but are staying steady, hopefully learning some valuable lessons and coming up with a strategy for how they are going to tackle the Korean threat.

 

A number of carmakers have already paid the piper (so to speak) to license Toyota's Hybrid Synergy Drive parallel-hybrid drivetrain.

Honda's series-hybrid tech (IMA) is much simpler and cheaper to build, although not as economical to run. It would sort of explain how they got the Insight rolled out relatively quickly after the heels of the Prius IMO, with the USP of a lower entry point into hybrid ownership.

My worry for Honda is that there's a novelty factor to a parallel hybrid that they aren't able to offer with IMA: running the car at city speeds purely on electric power. It's new, it's "cool," and people seem to be convinced that it really does save them money on fuel. And one wouldn't need to be an enthusiast to appreciate it.

This does not mean the CR-Z is a bad car. On the contrary, I've heard news that it's actually Toyota who are jealous of the CR-Z's very successful sales numbers in Japan and are now developing a proper rival. It probably won't be called a Prius - they seem to be planning on reserving that nameplate for future use as an "exclusive" sub-brand.

 

@Chazlee
Only two small comments to add...

1) the EPA does not allow for individual MPG ratings for each of the three driving modes. This is unfortunate and dramatically misconstrues estimated MPG in "economy" mode. Insiders report upwards of 50 mpg.

2) Honda is officially the "greenest" car manufacturer on earth with higher combined MPG for all models in their lineup than any other manufacturer (there is a reason they don't offer their exceptional, Formula 1 proven, V8 as an option...it would their fleet average MPG).

Do you honestly believe that Honda is, as you say..."frozen mind thinking???". Don't kid yourself. They know exactly what they're doing...and they're doing it better than anyone at the moment.

 

The insight weighed 850kg or so and had Power windows, batteries, and airbags (with 50 extra kg it would probably match today's safety requierements). Honda made the crz wrong, that's it.

 

By having fewer large, higher polluting vehicles, they have less need for extremely high mileage compact cars. Every gas guzzler requires extra investment in the gas sipper end of the fleet (or requires cranking out a LOT of cheapo volume economy cars *coughAveocough*

 

It also was an aluminum chassis, which helped contribute to it's weight being low. It would cost much more today than what it did, in fact the US price was pretty undercut from the Japanese price, just to sell them at the time. Almost what is happening now with the CR-Z as well, considering they start at about ¥2.3 million and get up to right about ¥2.8 million, which at today's exchange is $28000 to start and that is not even with taxes and getting it on the road yet. Add in another $2000.

The weight would be much more than 50kg, more like 200kg to meet safety in the US. The CR-X even gained 67~71kg depending on model from the '89 model to '90 model and even it today wouldn't pass safety standards. The CR-Z weighs approximately 665lbs more than the first gen Insight, both manually equipped, but that Insight weight is without AC and other creature comforts that are possessed by the CR-Z. Add that weight to the anemic output of the 1 liter engine and the CR-Z is a HUGE WIN compared to the first Insight. They could of made it an aluminum chassis to shed weight, drove the costs up even more and would it be selling in the same numbers it is already? The car is a win already for Honda in the sheer numbers that are being sold.

If you don't like it, so be it, but Honda didn't make it wrong if it is selling the way it is.

About the old CR-X HF getting 50mpg, that car can not even be compared at all really to the CR-Z. It was a gutter car intended for one purpose A-B transport with great mileage. It was not sporty in any fashion with all 62hp and later 72hp it produced, except maybe to look at, but even then it was pretty plain jane compared to the Si, which wasn't even really an Si when compared to the JDM Si and later Si-R. The Fit is not going to achieve better numbers than the CR-Z in fuel economy. Just looking at a fellow ToV'r here in Japan with his new CR-Z, he has achieved right at 50mpg after converting from km/l on long highway drives with cruise set to 100km/h, speed limits on the highways here, some are even just 80km/h. The best I saw ever in my Fit was right at 40mpg and the majority of that 300km was a dull and boring drive. My average is right at 29.36mpg, but I also don't drive like I have Miss Daisy in the back and on top of that traffic in Tokyo Metropolitan is horrendous, where something like the CR-Z will shine even more, hence the reason Honda is releasing a Hybrid Fit here.

 

There is no way a insight mk1 would need 200kg (440lb) to meet 2010 safety standards.

And even if the CRX HF was gutter car, it was probably still more fun to drive than the big CRZ. And in managed to make the 0-60 in 12 seconds or so, which isn't bad. My civic 4wd 75hp takes like an hour (15 seconds or so more seriously) and it's okay as long as I don't take the highway. More fun than modern cars.

And the better fuel economy of the CRZ ont the highway is because of the 6th gear (which obviously is lacking of the fit and make it a bad car) and the better aero. And I made 45MPG while cruising at 90kmh (55mph).

 

^this

All great points...but your arguments are falling on deaf ears here my friend. All the above posters have already made up their mind that the CRZ is fail without so much as a test drive. Funny thing is, 10 years from now...these same people will be using words like "breakthrough" and "ahead of it's time" to describe the car when bashing some other, later car release.

 

The one problem I had with the original post is the talk about space and utility, its a 2 seater, no comparison there, come on! I must be the only person that thinks the CR-Z is really sharp lookin', especially in that gray color, really sharp lines and a couple mods offered through the dealership make it look even better IMO.

Some mentioned the conservative MPG numbers earlier and we all know that's true, so I'm pretty confident that the CR-Z will do better. Let's not forget its got a 6 speed tranny too, that's exclusive to the segment and something I'm sure Toyota doesn't even know how to do.

In closing, if it were possible, I'd seriously consider the CR-Z if I were in the market for the car right now, I don't need the room of the Fit, but its nice when I need/have to take people somewhere but that's by choice though. I need to go and drive one and see what its REALLY like.

 

heres a fun game....

name the last car that honda made that was a complete flop if not incredibly successful...


anybody?.... yeah i didnt think so either.

 

toyota doesn't know how to do 6mt? Come on, the 2zz and the matrix (dunno if it's the 2zz) had 6m/t, same for the blacktop 20v (which takes a comparison with a b16 any time). And a guy at a fuel economy rallye did 4.6l/100km with his blacktop, that's pretty decent.
More likely, Toyota forgot how to make cars.

 

If i hadnt bought my fit a year ago and was still in the market for a new car i would jump on the cr-z ex 6mt right now!

imagine having hybrid power and expectations of hks bringing the supercharger out in the near future. its claimed to produce 250whp. the cr-z has factory projector hids, a much more sporty interior, 6mt, imo looks pretty cool, 4 wheel disc, and massive aftermarket support even before the car was released here in the states.

i myself love the cr-z. my wife's lease to the g37 coupe is nearing its end and she wants the cr-z, i have no objection to her decision because the g coupe has horrible mileage and high maintenance cost.

cr-z having screwy specs? if i didnt need the utility and the extra room of the fit as a daily driver i would trade my fit for a cr-z. as much as i love the fit, the cr-z is the ultimate in sporting, fuel sipping daily.

 

Accord Hybrid.

 

honda should have just named the accord hybrid as the accord premium w/hybrid or something. it has a v6 with a mild electric assist. it also had smoked led tails(at the time which no other models had led tails) and was a ex trim with little options because it was near full option trim.

also the new ridgeline and the pilot's designing is questionable. i really liked the mmc on first gen pilot and the first gen ridgeline looked awesome.