Five years later, what does GRM make of the CR-Z?

As I continue to grow older, get better jobs and live life more like an adult I'm starting to look at potential new/lightly used cars with a warranty to replace the "project daily driver" thing I've been doing since I got my license. I was talking with a Honda-fan coworker of mine about the weirdness of the CR-Z and he said one thing that got me listening:

"Yeah, they're a weird car that doesn't do anything perfectly, but considering you can get one for ten grand with almost no miles, I wouldn't write one off." Sure enough, I poked around on AutoTrader and suffice to say, $10k will get you a basically new car in CR-Z land.

So, why does everyone hate these so much? Are they impossible to tweak into a spirited daily driver type vehicle?

"Hate" may be a strong word... "ignore" maybe?

I'd say the general consensus is unlike Mazda, Honda missed the mark when trying to recapture what made the original CR cars fun.

Coincidentally, I pass by a house during my commute where the owners have an original CRX. When the CRZ came out, they bought one - same color even (white).

I can say that it is at the top of the list to for a next car for both my wife and I.

CRZ fuel economy city: 36 highway 39, combine 34 (manual)

Fiesta ST: city 26 highway 35, combined 29

I'll take the added space, more nimble chassis and 60 added hp courtesy of boost for tradeoff of 5 mpg.

Buddy just bought one with 20k miles. He loves it. I don't hate it.

But i also don't understand it.

My boss has one (first year, I think?) as a DD appliance. He's been happy with it although I found riding in the passenger seat less than comfortable as a big guy. It is a true stick, which impresses me. He's not really a sportscar guy but did own and love an RX8, so has some reference. He does complain about the hill start assist that automatically revs the engine when releasing the clutch on an incline.

Wasn't there a Mugen CR-Z when they first came out? That would indicate the possibility of tuning, at least.

In reply to captdownshift:

I love the Fiesta ST too, but we're talking a $10k buy-in difference at similar mileage for everything I can see online. If you could get a Fiesta ST for $12k with 6k miles, like you can with the CR-Z, this thread wouldn't exist. But, sadly, you can't.

I studied the specs when these things first came out. I don't remember 'zactly, but I think the performance specs were about on a par with the original CRX. The sporty car of the future, in other words, wasn't any sportier than the one of the past (20 years past, at that). People looking for the performance went elsewhere and the car didn't really make sense for the appliance shoppers looking for mpg.

In reply to SlickDizzy:

true, I think the ST is where a good amount of hate and lack of sales comes from though. New they're similarly priced, with similar weight. The ST has great aftermarket support, there is a single turbo kit available for the CR-Z that I'm aware of and it's priced as if it realizes that it's the only game in town. And there's the resale value issue as well. All that being said, as you noted, you might not be a bad used car to pick up, if you like it as is out of the box. If you have $10k to drop on a used car though, you may want to consider financing the balance of a new ST though.

Ian F wrote: "Hate" may be a strong word... "ignore" maybe? I'd say the general consensus is unlike Mazda, Honda missed the mark when trying to recapture what made the original CR cars fun. Coincidentally, I pass by a house during my commute where the owners have an original CRX. When the CRZ came out, they bought one - same color even (white).

We enthusiests look at the CRX much like the Fiero- both of which were two seat cars that were supposed to be economical to use and commute with. Enthusiests saw a light car that turned well- which Honda replied with the SI. Similarly we saw the Fiero as a mid-engined car like the MR2/X1/9, so it must be sport- which it wasn't until later.

So ignoring the enthusiest side of the CRX, the CRV is very close to the CRX.

Basil Exposition wrote: I studied the specs when these things first came out. I don't remember 'zactly, but I think the performance specs were about on a par with the original CRX. The sporty car of the future, in other words, wasn't any sportier than the one of the past (20 years past, at that). People looking for the performance went elsewhere and the car didn't really make sense for the appliance shoppers looking for mpg.

You have the same conclusions I do. It's a good car, but does not one thing well enough to make it stand out. It is automotive melba toast wrapped in a nice looking body. If it were a 4 door, we'd probably accept it as a sporty 4 door transportation device; but alas it is not.

My brother in law has had his for 3 years or so, and of course it has been Honda bullet proof. He likes it, and I've driven it. First, it has decent power, more than you might expect, especially down low. It's no hot rod however. It also is a nice driver, but it's not a sports car substitute if that is what you are after. It is a genuinely a nice car however if you take it for what it is; an economical commuter that looks OK and drives OK.

Basil Exposition wrote: I studied the specs when these things first came out. I don't remember 'zactly, but I think the performance specs were about on a par with the original CRX. The sporty car of the future, in other words, wasn't any sportier than the one of the past (20 years past, at that). People looking for the performance went elsewhere and the car didn't really make sense for the appliance shoppers looking for mpg.

Edmunds actually did a comparison test.
http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/features/2011-honda-cr-z-vs-1987-honda-crx-si.html

As for tuning, Jackson Racing has superchargers available. They've even been through CARB, which was a very interesting adventure.

SlickDizzy wrote: In reply to captdownshift: I love the Fiesta ST too, but we're talking a $10k buy-in difference at similar mileage for everything I can see online. If you could get a Fiesta ST for $12k with 6k miles, like you can with the CR-Z, this thread wouldn't exist. But, sadly, you can't.

And this is the law of supply and demand. The market considers an ST to be twice as valuable as a CR-Z. Kinda says it all.

So what if THIS happens:

http://www.caranddriver.com/news/2018-honda-cr-z-rendered-may-ditch-hybrid-for-new-turbo-news

Drive anything with the IMA system. It's really really bad. 110hp, except when it's not because the tiny battery is always flat. Then you get 90. Really slow off the line too. I've driven other slow cars, but my Civic hybrid w/no battery charge is close to dangerous when pulling out at intersections.

Oh, and if an NiMH IMA battery has sat for more than a month, it's only a matter of time before it fails.

It may well be nicer in the CRZ, but I doubt it.

I saw one today. It was weird-looking. And not weird/cool like the Hyundai Veloster.

bravenrace wrote: So what if THIS happens: http://www.caranddriver.com/news/2018-honda-cr-z-rendered-may-ditch-hybrid-for-new-turbo-news

I hope that this happens.

Not practical enough for what most folks [perceive they] need. Not fun enough to be a 3rd car. Not good enough gas mileage to make a difference for most people. Not luxurious, not particularly comfortable, not...

None of these things are deal breakers, but like that first post said, it doesn't do anything perfectly. I suspect that we'll start to see them on this site since they are depreciating pretty well, but it is really in an awkward position. An answer to a question that I think was asked (Hybrid sportscar!!!), but not a question with much merit behind it. And it wasn't answered quite enough in any one direction to work out that great--it kind of half asses both of them and falls on its face.

That isn't fair, since it isn't a bad car and it is fun... I think that as it comes down in depreciation it will be very intersting.

In reply to Woody:

Me too.

Hell, I'm ALREADY interested with how they're depreciating. My shortlist is something like: FiST, FR-S, NC MX-5, and the CR-Z...and all of the CR-Zs I'm finding are about 50% less than every other car I'm looking at. It's well known that the CR-Z is the least exciting car of the bunch, but when you weight the equation for value, that makes things much more interesting...it would strictly be a DD for me, anyway.

Apparently it's not terribly hard to squeeze an extra 15-20HP out of the engine; I'm just curious about how well they handle and drive after some suspension work.

Pretty sure when they were brand new, a Civic HF was better in every quantified way, including price and MPG. Plus you could seat 4 and got a real trunk.

In reply to calteg:

Likely other than safety, which most of us take risks on every day.

And emissions.