CRZ-CRX Article

Good read. And it actually had me wanting to go test drive a CRZ...But then it occured to me that I can buy a CRX a lot cheaper.

I stopped at the Honda dealer shortly before reading the article to do a walk around of the CRZ. Two things that stood out to me: they must not be selling well since they were sitting in the back corner of the lot and were dirty, also, it would be tough for me to buy a CRZ knowing that a Civic Si is about the same price.

I see your point. Although if that was the comparison I was making, I'd have to drive the CRZ first. I've driven a current Civic si, and although it was a fun car, for me it didn't stack up to the CRX.

I want my new issue! BOOHOO!

Looks like I'll have to pick up an issue during my lunch break. Hopefully its on the shelf. There is also a Honda dealer on my way. Maybe I should wait until tomorrow and drive my Crx Si to get the magazine, then stop by Honda on the way back and do my own test. I wish I had more hands.... so I can give the Cr-z four thumbs down. I just wanted to say that. I wouldn't mind driving it.

bravenrace wrote: Good read. And it actually had me wanting to go test drive a CRZ...But then it occured to me that I can buy a CRX a lot cheaper.

I checked one out a few weeks ago and though the same. Don't get me wrong, it's a decent car, but it's like going to a restaurant that sold really good steaks that now sells hamburgers and being told it's the same thing. Gas mileage is terrible when you think about what it actually is. The price is also ridiculous. If I'm a die hard tree humping greeny that has to drive a hybrid, I'm taking the extra 15mpg of the Prius. If I want a sporty car that gets mid 30's there are a ton of better choices out there. A Fiesta can be had for $5k less and gets better mileage on a normal engine. It seems after a lot of real good cars through the 80's and 90's, Honda just gave up in the 00's.

A nice low mileage stock CRX is on my list of cars to pick up in the next few years. BRB, getting 50+ MPG on a "dirty" engine using 30 yr old technology.

The specs are remarkably similar in terms of mpg, performance, and even cost when inflation is factored. I think the basic problem is that our expectations have increased. In 1990, 0-60 in 6 was still considered blistering, and 45 MPG was doable, but in a stripped-down 2-seater. Now we have sub - 6 second SUVs and refined 4 seaters with stellar MPG. Having comparable specs just isn't enough when the world has moved on. As a Honda, I'm sure that it's a perfectly lovely car, but standing still isn't enough for the enthusiast crowd. The secretary/hairdresser crowd might just lap it up, however.

I thought that was the Miata's market segment

The specs are remarkably similar in terms of mpg, performance, and even cost when inflation is factored. I think the basic problem is that our expectations have increased. In 1990, 0-60 in 6 was still considered blistering, and 45 MPG was doable, but in a stripped-down 2-seater. Now we have sub - 6 second SUVs and refined 4 seaters with stellar MPG. Having comparable specs just isn't enough when the world has moved on. As a Honda, I'm sure that it's a perfectly lovely car,

Excellent point.

I think one of the things thats been annoying me about Honda in the last few years is the way they are staggering all their releases so that new products arent competing with each other for the limelight.

Like, ive been asking about the Fit Hybrid (you know, the one that will get prius mileage or better?) for years, but it is only after the laboriously long release and cool down of the 2g insight, and then the cr-z, that they are bringing it out. I honestly fee that each of these cars could have been done at the same time (they use most of the same powertrain hardware), but corporate priorities dictated the order. Likewise, if the Cr-Z had come out when the 2g Insight did, it might be up for a performance boost by now. I see it as an annoying waiting game.

2010 Honda Civic Si - $24,815, 0-60 in 6.7 seconds Link to article

2011 Honda CR-Z - $24,000, 0-60 in 8.3 seconds (actually, several articles have it in the mid-to-high 9 second range)Link to article

Which would you rather have?

IIRC, the base price of the CRZ is under $21k, according to the GRM article.

I wish they'd make the CR-Z with the current Civic Si drivetrain. Call it the "CR-Z SiR" or whatever.

"Yes, Bob. That is something I think I'd be interested in."

Lainford_Express wrote: I wish they'd make the CR-Z with the current Civic Si drivetrain. Call it the "CR-Z SiR" or whatever. "Yes, Bob. That is something I think I'd be interested in."

that is what i was expecting when i first saw the CR-Z. take out the stupid batteries and hybrid stuff. I can't immagine the CR-Z with a current Si drivetrain getting much less than 30 MPG, except it would be hella fun, and I might want to buy one then.

Rufledt wrote:

Lainford_Express wrote: I wish they'd make the CR-Z with the current Civic Si drivetrain. Call it the "CR-Z SiR" or whatever. "Yes, Bob. That is something I think I'd be interested in."

that is what i was expecting when i first saw the CR-Z. take out the stupid batteries and hybrid stuff. I can't immagine the CR-Z with a current Si drivetrain getting much less than 30 MPG, except it would be hella fun, and I might want to buy one then.

Plus it would weigh a heck of a lot less.

I figure Hasport will eventually make mounts for K-swaps.

teamdixonracing wrote: I figure Hasport will eventually make mounts for K-swaps.

Mounts are a solvable problem, but the CAN-BUS wiring scares me. I don't think there's a megasquirt module for de-hybridizing yet.

Tom Heath wrote:

teamdixonracing wrote: I figure Hasport will eventually make mounts for K-swaps.

Mounts are a solvable problem, but the CAN-BUS wiring scares me. I don't think there's a megasquirt module for de-hybridizing yet.

Anything's possible.

There have been a couple swapped 1st gen Insights.

Do I have this right? The 2011 CRZ performs about the same as the 1988 CRX? And Honda calls that progress?

I'm keeping the Cooper S, thanks anyway.

I like the concept of a CR-Z Si. Take the CRZ, ditch the single-cam 1.5L, and replace it with a DOHC 1.8 or 2.0L. That way you get a decent performance motor for high-rpm but keep the hybrid setup for the torque boost down low (and the greenies). It wouldn't weigh much more than the current setup (10 lbs maybe?), but would have significantly better performance with no serious hit to the fuel economy.

My mailman isn't through with my issue yet. :(

Basil Exposition wrote: Do I have this right? The 2011 CRZ performs about the same as the 1988 CRX? And Honda calls that progress? I'm keeping the Cooper S, thanks anyway.

The CRX doesn't come with 6 airbags, much of a stereo or nearly as safe a crash structure.

Modern car buyers demand such things unfortunately so we end up with the CRZ.

jstein77 wrote: 2010 Honda Civic Si - $24,815, 0-60 in 6.7 seconds Link to article 2011 Honda CR-Z - $24,000, 0-60 in 8.3 seconds (actually, several articles have it in the mid-to-high 9 second range)Link to article Which would you rather have?

for the same general price, I'd rather have:

2011 wrx - $25,495 0-60 in 4.7 seconds, and AWD goodness. Yeah, the mileage is pretty sorry (25hwy), but you can't put a fuel price on driving fun.

2010 Cobalt SS $23,500 0-60 in 5.8 and still gets a decent 30mpg highway

2011 Mazdaspeed3 $23,300 0-60 in 6.3....28mpg hwy.

As a guy who previously drove a 92 accord coupe, 87 integra, and 89 civic lx, all of them trouble-free and fun(ish) to drive, I can honestly say nothing in Honda's current lineup excites me enough to even consider them, now that the S2000 is gone...

The '88 CRX Si used for the GRM article was wearing Falken Azenis rubber and was only 0.03 seconds a lap faster than the CR-Z on stock rubber. So my question is how much are the Azenis' worth on a 41-42 second lap at the Ocala Grand Prix course? Are they worth a 0.2 seconds, 0.5 seconds maybe? If so, the CR-Z maybe actually be quite a bit quicker per lap. Jsut sayin'

I don't think anyone is denying that it is a better car, just why the heck Honda built this when they could have made a real CRX doppleganger. And to top it all off, the car is only marginally faster with marginally better file economy despite being released yesterday compared to a product from the same company built when I was five.

I don't think anyone is denying that it is a better car, just why the heck Honda built this when they could have made a real CRX doppleganger. And to top it all off, the car is only marginally faster with marginally better file economy despite being released yesterday compared to a product from the same company built when I was five.

Why build it? Because most of the work was already done when they built the Insight, which noone is saying does not have a reason to exist. Why not spend a few mil more and turn it into a 2dr hatch and make some more money? How bought helping the CAFE avg? Why WOULDNT they build this car?

Marginally faster at WOT is but one consideration out of VERY many that makes a car good or bad, even to the most zealous of lead-footers who would actually drop 20G on a new car. The car in all likelihood is measurably, indisputably superior in many many many other ways.