1 2
Will
Will Reader
1/11/10 5:19 p.m.

This is the best Honda could do? This is the car that's supposed to be the new CRX? 122 hp, 128 lb-ft and 33 combined mpg for the manual trans? Can't wait to find out what it weighs...

jwdmotorsports
jwdmotorsports HalfDork
1/11/10 5:39 p.m.

I have a co-worker that has a 91 CRX Si. He's been on pins and needles waiting on the CR-Z to come out.

Personal opinion, from everything I've seen the CRX crowd isn't going to like it. I'm waiting to see one in person and drive it to make my final call on the car. Personally I don't think I'll be a huge fan of it.

loki
loki New Reader
1/11/10 5:45 p.m.

I would love a remake a the crx hf, 60hp 50+ mpg, no ac, no ps, no anything, super light, and to the point. Unfortunately, everyone today has to have satnav, ac, 34 speakers, and not to mention crash requirements. The age of the HF are gone

kreb
kreb Dork
1/11/10 5:46 p.m.

My first thought was naw... It can't have that lame of specs. Especially with electric assist, where's the torque?

Well Honda's own web page verifys it. What am I missing here? I've seen the 1st generation Insight do quite well in Autocross with some sticky rubber. Per Wikipedia it was was 83 HP, 1850 Lbs, and got 70 MPG. The new one is 2700 lbs and get's half the milleage. Where's my wayback machine when I need it?

oldsaw
oldsaw HalfDork
1/11/10 5:47 p.m.

CRX fans will likely be disappointed as the car will NOT be a replacement. While it may have some sporty pretensions, the design emphasis is on the "green" appeal of the hybrid technology and fuel economy.

If Honda designates the 6-spd version as an Si, people are gonna pissed.

edit: Oh, and I think the CRZ is fugly, too.........

jwdmotorsports
jwdmotorsports HalfDork
1/11/10 6:02 p.m.

Agreed on the fugly statement.

I remember seeing an Insight with a K-Series swap several years ago. How long do you think it will be before CRZs start showing up with motor swaps?

xci_ed6
xci_ed6 HalfDork
1/11/10 6:31 p.m.

More likely will be the old 2dr Insights. They're getting cheap, and soon will be suffering from battery pack ($$$) failure. Oh, and they are 'rust-free' aluminum

RexSeven
RexSeven Dork
1/11/10 6:53 p.m.
oldsaw wrote: CRX fans will likely be disappointed as the car will NOT be a replacement. While it may have some sporty pretensions, the design emphasis is on the "green" appeal of the hybrid technology and fuel economy.

But the problem is, with only 33mpg, it's not that green compared to other hybrids like the Prius, Insight, or even the Fusion Hybrid. Sure, tailpipe emissions will be low, which will go over well with the greenies, but 33mpg from a non-truck hybrid will turn off the fuel-economy-minded set real quick.

I wanted the CR-Z to work. An affordable hybrid that's actually entertaining to drive? Yes, please. But this one's coming up waaay short of that mark.

Jamesc2123
Jamesc2123 Reader
1/11/10 7:01 p.m.

Compared with the market today, it stack up just fine. Its actually a very mild hybrid, so don't expect a huge jump in mileage just because of that. A new civic is a little heavier, has a little more power, and gets 29mpg combined. A fit only claims 31mpg. A CR-Z with the CVT should get 37. If it delivers on handling/driving experience, and a price just south of $20k, it should be a great little car, just not one for our little sub-niche.

DirtyBird222
DirtyBird222 Dork
1/11/10 7:24 p.m.

when i get to pdi one, i'll be back with a review for you guys

kreb
kreb Dork
1/11/10 7:37 p.m.
Jamesc2123 wrote: Compared with the market today, it stack up just fine. Its actually a very mild hybrid, so don't expect a huge jump in mileage just because of that. A new civic is a little heavier, has a little more power, and gets 29mpg combined. A fit only claims 31mpg. A CR-Z with the CVT should get 37. If it delivers on handling/driving experience, and a price just south of $20k, it should be a great little car, just not one for our little sub-niche.

Wow, an apoligist! When several SUVs get better performance AND acceleration than a sports car, I'd have to say that the parent company's lost its way.

Seriously, it seems so...underwhelming. Of course both Honda and Toyota have turned into very conservative companies of late. They make the stuff that I consider for my (middle-aged conservative) wife. I look elsewhere.

""

oldsaw
oldsaw HalfDork
1/11/10 8:00 p.m.

In reply to Jamesc2123:

Reports indicate the car will weigh-in at about 2800lbs; a MT Fit comes in 300lb less. Pundits speculate pricing at around $23,000 and dealers (at this time) apparently have no interest in guaranteeing a pre-delivery price.

Paying Si prices for less performance and marginally better mileage means the CRZ had better be a damn great car if mileage isn't a major feature and dealers are already salivating at pre-introduction mark-ups.

Honda's next generation Civic will reportedly shed some size and girth and will likely offer better mileage than current models. If true, that cements the CRZ as a niche offering.

The advertising agency may have its' hands full in making it a player. But, we'll see.

924guy
924guy Dork
1/11/10 8:30 p.m.

Ive been waiting to see how the CRZ stacks up, Ill continue to wait until there are some real world observations. id of liked to some better initial stats, but i think its still way too early to make a judgement.

racer_ace
racer_ace New Reader
1/11/10 8:42 p.m.

The new CR-Z and CR-Z EX (that is what they are calling the more "equipped" model; you can get the 6-speed or CVT in either trim level) are in line with the CRX HF and DX of yore, not the Si. Honda never said it was building a new pocket rocket. As far as the weight (I think the 6 speed is 2670 lbs.) goes it is a bit appalling...but all new cars are bloated because of B.S. pedestrian safety standards, collision "compatibility" with giant arse SUVs and 4000lb Tauri, and the current "standard" of NVH and number of gadgets "required" by consumers. So, the mileage dosen't look that stellar. I have no doubt that the actual mileage will be a bit better than the EPA numbers. However, unless there is a worldwide culture change we will never see a 50 mpg CR-X again. It is sad. For what it is, a MODERN iterpretation of a CRX-HF/DX given all of the current safety and emissions requirements and society's "gotta haves" the CR-Z ain't so bad. I am not going to line up at the dealer ship to plunk down my hard earned cash on one...but not bad.

JFX001
JFX001 Dork
1/11/10 8:44 p.m.

I'm sure Honda will do the usual and keep updating the model.Give it a year or two.

Vigo
Vigo Reader
1/11/10 9:19 p.m.
Its actually a very mild hybrid, so don't expect a huge jump in mileage just because of that.

Uhh.. so was the 1st gen 70mpg insight.

And hell, geo metros, crx HF, civic VX, were NO kind of hybrid and could break 50 if driven a certain way. Ive touched 33 mpg in my 1990 2.5l dodge caravan. Seats 7!

My 2.0/auto mazda3 avgs 30 and has touched 42 on road trips, bone stock and no hybrid, 2800 lbs, through an auto.

any small car with ANY hybrid assist should do better.

Jamesc2123
Jamesc2123 Reader
1/11/10 9:29 p.m.

Kreb, Ford used that logic to advertise in commercials that their Edge was faster than a Porsche Boxster. Also, if you want to compare apples to oranges, I'm sure the the CR-Z will trounce a stock CRX (Non Si, as this one isn't) around a track. Racer Ace is saying what i'm saying, that for a modern car that is attempting to appeal for a broader market than the HF ever could, its not bad at all. I don't expect most on this forum to embrace it, and its definitely not my kind of car either, but don't knock it just because they didn't make a 1988 CRX.

Josh
Josh Dork
1/11/10 9:52 p.m.
Jamesc2123 wrote: Kreb, Ford used that logic to advertise in commercials that their Edge was faster than a Porsche Boxster.

Ok, something didn't sound right about this one, so I found the ad you were probably thinking of when you wrote this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbN0aaI87M8

It was an X5, not a Boxster, and while beating a BMW might sound impressive to a non-gearhead, we all know the 3.0l X5 is a DOG.

Maybe you were confusing that ad in your head with an old print ad for a Lexus LS that bragged about it beating a 2.5l Boxster 0-60 (of course, those weren't exactly straight-line stormers either).

Jamesc2123
Jamesc2123 Reader
1/11/10 10:08 p.m.

I was thinking of that one with the X5, sorry. There was another SUV ad on tv a while ago that was bragging about it beating a boxster. It might have even been an X5 ad, and I know the Grand Cherokee SRT8 also did the pick on the slower sports cars game in their ads.

racer_ace
racer_ace New Reader
1/11/10 11:08 p.m.

Vigo. I hear you but... The 1st Gen Insight weighed less than 2000 lbs and had 670lbs more (my complaint with all cars today) and has 122 hp with the IMA.

racer_ace
racer_ace New Reader
1/11/10 11:09 p.m.

In reply to racer_ace:

Fixed...

Vigo. I hear you but... The 1st Gen Insight weighed less than 2000 lbs. The CR-Z weighs 670lbs more (my complaint with all cars today) and has 122 hp with the IMA.

kreb
kreb Dork
1/12/10 12:48 a.m.
Jamesc2123 wrote: Racer Ace is saying what i'm saying, that for a modern car that is attempting to appeal for a broader market than the HF ever could, its not bad at all. I don't expect most on this forum to embrace it, and its definitely not my kind of car either, but don't knock it just because they didn't make a 1988 CRX.

Actually it was the other guy drawing the analogy to a CRX. I was the guy saying that the 1st gen Insight has TWICE as good milleage with comparable performance. And since that model was just discontinued four years ago, it's not like it's safety and creature comforts were stone-age.

Hey, I'm sure that it will be a perfectly pleasant car, but can you look me in the eye and say that they couldn't have gotten comparable or better performance/economy figures going 100 percent internal combustion? Honda's the one calling this thing a sports car. I find that statement borderline insulting. But we'll see. It may be the bees knees.

joey48442
joey48442 SuperDork
1/12/10 1:30 a.m.
Jamesc2123 wrote: Kreb, Ford used that logic to advertise in commercials that their Edge was faster than a Porsche Boxster. Also, if you want to compare apples to oranges, I'm sure the the CR-Z will trounce a stock CRX (Non Si, as this one isn't) around a track. Racer Ace is saying what i'm saying, that for a modern car that is attempting to appeal for a broader market than the HF ever could, its not bad at all. I don't expect most on this forum to embrace it, and its definitely not my kind of car either, but don't knock it just because they didn't make a 1988 CRX.

I think it should be much better than a crx. It's had 20 years to evolve. It should be safer, faster, more comfortable and get much better mileage. As long as technology is going somewhere, of course.

Joey

kcmoken
kcmoken New Reader
1/12/10 7:33 a.m.

I had a 1991 CRX Si, and have been waiting for an update/replacement ever since. Del Sol - nope. Insight - nope. CRZ - I don't think so. That is one car I regret selling (although I did replace it with a Miata, which is THE answer).

Vigo
Vigo Reader
1/12/10 8:11 p.m.

Personally, i would happily take a 91 crx, a del sol, ESPECIALLY an insight (looked into them and tried to sell our mazda3 recently), but the CRZ just doesnt hit my buttons.

BUT, the HUGE qualifier to go with that statement is the money factor. Anything costing more than $3k has to have a LOT of things going for it for me to even think about it. In proper context, it can be said that what seems underwhelming when new may be something i would pick up after it drops 80% of its value.

But really, what has and will keep me away from hondas is their popularity.. I dont like that parts for them have actual value and you have to compete with other people to get actual deals. With the cars im into, if i see a car or part for sale and i dont like the price, i just wait a month until the seller is ready to give it away because im the only person who is interested.

1 2
Our Preferred Partners
wJcHsetabUQBxUFAvh76QEbtVaoWJcfiMwA4RkBgqo7vZIoVpryo7jq6fLnBgPXD