Vigo wrote: ....I still think it's a bit unfair to compare the CR-Z to a crx si rather than a lower-spec civic hatch. I think people are being fooled by the name here....
I don't know. It does have a 6-speed option (which is pretty wacky for a hybrid) and has a sport mode. It seems like Honda is doing that comparison.
Maybe yes but not for OUR sakes. They're catering to the people who vaguely know what a CRX was, and the people who enjoyed them as delivered, not the tiny numbers of racing fans who actually still covet them 20 years later. Us kind of people are kind of fanatical relative to the money-spenders they actually target new cars towards.
Besides, my 1g Insight has a 5spd manual, and im pretty sure to date its the only OTHER hybrid with a manual, and my insight makes no sporting pretention at all. In fact, they should really call it a 3spd manual + 2 useless gears.
I saw three of them on a truck this morning on the way to work. They look pretty cool in person until you see the dopey half-alteeza taillights. And until you start thinking about how "not a CRX" they really are.
Vigo wrote: Besides, my 1g Insight has a 5spd manual, and im pretty sure to date its the only OTHER hybrid with a manual, and my insight makes no sporting pretention at all. In fact, they should really call it a 3spd manual + 2 useless gears.
I had a friend with a Civic Hybrid equipped with a 5-speed.
Nice vid...though I chuckle at the screaming tires. Throw some star specs on both of them and THEN do the test 
And damn, they both look so slow, lol...
I would be willing to lend my CRX out for a modified vs modified CRZ comparison.
ugh i've done 2 PDIs on these CR-Zs the auto is dog slow and absolutely no fun to drive. Steering is nice and tight, suspension is stiff, handles really well, but that CVT like I said before is BLAH!
The 6-speed option is a blast. I would def consider that over a Fit or insight even though they are all pretty much the same car. The CR-Z is also very spacious and roomy as well, the way everything folds down in the back leaves you with a generous amount of space for hauling random things. And the gauge cluster makes you feel like your in a space ship (turns red in sport mode oooooh!)
irish44j wrote: Nice vid...though I chuckle at the screaming tires. Throw some star specs on both of them and THEN do the test
As the guy driving the CRX in the car-to-car or the side-by-side shots, I will say that it definately felt lke we were going faster than it shows in the video. I am by no means a "race driver", so a safer pace was my fault. But I can tell you that when Scott was driving out on the track alone, he pushed both cars extensively. The hot lap "rides" he let me ride with, I was very impressed with both cars. The CR-Z on its stock tires did a fair share of screaming. The Azenis on my CRX are aged and well worn and did their fair share of howling.
I'm writing the story, so I won't go too in depth, 'cuz I ain't in the givin' it away for free business, but...
God I miss my '90 CRX Si. Why, why did I ever sell that car? I totally know how that guy that quit the Beatles felt.
The CR-Z is pretty darn good. I would probably put it in the class of the new MINI for a modern car that just feels right and works within the context of modern packaging restrictions to create a car that drives "small."
The new pavement at our test track at Ocala GP is pretty noisy. Even modest drives get the squeelies.
Like the original CRXs, the CR-Z succeeds in feeling like more than the sum of its parts. It's not fair to judge it on the numbers alone (although the numbers are nothing to be ashamed of).
And speaking of numbers, our measurements show that Honda may have been wrong about a key spec. But the mistake benefits the driver.
jg
JG Pasterjak wrote: Why, why did I ever sell that car? I totally know how that guy that quit the Beatles felt.
JG, if you weren't discriminated against for actually being on the staff, that'd be a shoo-in for "Say What?". 
Seriously tho, thanks for the tidbits. Makes my campsite out at the mailbox much more comfortable when I know a reward is coming. 
Now go get that berkeleying article finished so I can read it. Publish or perish, bro..
SEEKERone wrote:irish44j wrote: Nice vid...though I chuckle at the screaming tires. Throw some star specs on both of them and THEN do the testAs the guy driving the CRX in the car-to-car or the side-by-side shots, I will say that it definately felt lke we were going faster than it shows in the video. I am by no means a "race driver", so a safer pace was my fault.
Nah, don't sweat it. I work in TV, and have staged things like this before. To run close enough side-by-side to make it fit within a camera's field of view is difficult, regardless of speed. You really have to concentrate to be safe. You did a great job, the shots on the video are quite attractive, from a "video" POV. Also, from what other people have told me about Ocala, to anything bigger than a kart, the place is straight up "Malibu Grand Prix". And anybody who's ever raced small-displacement cars (personally, I'm ex-SCCA Improved Touring B) will tell you that they always look slower "on they outside" than they do from the hotseat.
SEEKERone wrote: But I can tell you that when Scott was driving out on the track alone, he pushed both cars extensively. The hot lap "rides" he let me ride with, I was very impressed with both cars. The CR-Z on its stock tires did a fair share of screaming. The Azenis on my CRX are aged and well worn and did their fair share of howling.
Knowing GRM, the reason they picked your particular car was to concentrate upon the real differences upon the feel of the cars, and trying to compare them regardless of the time differential. The fact that Honda even wants to make a CRX successor is big news! I'm sure they could have picked some modified CRX autocrosser to compare to the new car, and kicked that thing to the curb on lap times. But that's not what they're trying to do. Your tired Azenis are probably comparable to the best street rubber on the planet back in 1992, which makes for a much more honest comparison of the subjective "feelings" about the two cars.
Long story short: You're not a bad driver, your car is seriously cool, and thank you very, very much for participating in this effort. I've been joking with the staff (who actually post here pretty frequently) that I've actually been camping out at my mailbox in anticipation of the article. You rock, dude. Thanks for helping them to do this.
bravenrace wrote: In reply to Tom Heath: I'm holding out for the si version (hopefully). I really wish this thing wasn't a hybrid though. I was surprised when I saw them together how close they are in size and shape.
I agree. Hybrid small car = marketing excercise. If they wanted to make an ultra mileage sporty car they should have developed a 200~HP turbo deisel. It would certainly be faster and probably top 37 mpg too.
Looking forward to the article. Great video by the way! Very impressive.
MrBenjamonkey wrote:bravenrace wrote: In reply to Tom Heath: I'm holding out for the si version (hopefully). I really wish this thing wasn't a hybrid though. I was surprised when I saw them together how close they are in size and shape.I agree. Hybrid small car = marketing excercise. If they wanted to make an ultra mileage sporty car they should have developed a 200~HP turbo deisel. It would certainly be faster and probably top 37 mpg too.
I had a turbo on my '91 CRX-si, and still got 38mpg on a trip. I know that sounds suspicious because it just tops the 37 of the CRZ, but that is really what I got. Yes, it was a light car that can't be easily/cheaply matched these days, but still, did it really have to be a hybrid? My carpool partner's 07 civic often tops 40 mpg on all freeway driving, which makes 37 in a hybrid again seem less than impressive. but then again, I'm comparing actual numbers for the civic with the rated number for the CRZ.
Is it me, or are EPA estimates getting further from the truth now than they were on the old testing protocol?
JG Pasterjak wrote: 1. God I miss my '90 CRX Si. Why, why did I ever sell that car? I totally know how that guy that quit the Beatles felt.
I felt the same way... I sold my '88 Si in the late-90s and never stopped missing it. Finally replaced it last year with a '91 Hf that is getting an Si drivetrain and suspension mods. CSP here I come...
In reply to PS122:
Add me to that list. I've owned 5 CRX's, but the black '91 si that I bought new, kept in showroom condition for 8 years and then sold because it didn't have a back seat, is the one I miss the most of the 80+ cars I've owned. I'm never selling my '90 Civic si. Never.
VanillaSky wrote: Is it me, or are EPA estimates getting further from the truth now than they were on the old testing protocol?
I don't know. But I've owned a lot of Honda's. It used to be that every one of them significantly exceeded the EPA mileage numbers. That is, until I bought an '07 Accord V-6 coupe. I never got better than 26 mpg with that car, which was a huge disappointment, since I also owned an '03 TL-S with the same basic engine, more displacement, more HP, more torque, more weight, and routinely got 30-31 mpg highway out of it with a loaded trunk, family of four, and the A/C on.
bravenrace wrote:MrBenjamonkey wrote:I had a turbo on my '91 CRX-si, and still got 38mpg on a trip. I know that sounds suspicious because it just tops the 37 of the CRZ, but that is really what I got. Yes, it was a light car that can't be easily/cheaply matched these days, but still, did it really have to be a hybrid? My carpool partner's 07 civic often tops 40 mpg on all freeway driving, which makes 37 in a hybrid again seem less than impressive. but then again, I'm comparing actual numbers for the civic with the rated number for the CRZ.bravenrace wrote: In reply to Tom Heath: I'm holding out for the si version (hopefully). I really wish this thing wasn't a hybrid though. I was surprised when I saw them together how close they are in size and shape.I agree. Hybrid small car = marketing excercise. If they wanted to make an ultra mileage sporty car they should have developed a 200~HP turbo deisel. It would certainly be faster and probably top 37 mpg too.
I used to get 41 mpg out of my 88 EF sedan, so I completely believe you. I don't understand why there are small hybrids when small diesels do the same thing better.
Maybe this is just my secret desire for an affordable diesel hot hatch.
I'm inclined to give the CRZ a chance.
The CRZ is kind of in the same vein as the Camaro, Mustang, Challenger, etc. These retro-mobiles can be better in every way, but still can't match our memories of the originals.
friedgreencorrado wrote: ..... To run close enough side-by-side to make it fit within a camera's field of view is difficult, regardless of speed. You *really* have to concentrate to be safe.
You got that right, big time. Paranoia about getting some speed, while avoiding the curb which would bump me wider into a borrowed CR-Z, holding a consistant line so Scott could ride in tighter for better shot, and avoiding running over JG....yeah that about covers it.
friedgreencorrado wrote: Knowing GRM, the reason they picked *your* particular car was to concentrate upon the real differences upon the feel of the cars, and trying to compare them regardless of the time differential. ....... I'm sure they could have picked some modified CRX autocrosser to compare to the new car, and kicked that thing to the curb on lap times. But that's not what they're trying to do. ....
I have to think that the reasone they picked mine was this....how hard is it to find a completely stock 2nd gen CRX. And when I say completely, I mean the radio is still that crappy AM/FM/Cassette, non-faded factory paint, no suspension changes, and stock OEM exhaust. Hell, I own it and I have a hard time believing that it still exists. I bought it a year ago out of somebody's garage...a literal 51K mile "barn find".
friedgreencorrado wrote: Long story short: You're not a *bad* driver, your car is seriously cool, and thank you very, very much for participating in this effort...... Thanks for helping them to do this.
Thanks for the kind words...I know I am not a bad driver...just not a "racer" in the sense of the word.
I'm writing the story
This pleases me.
Fantastic teaser video! I know that this is not very GRMish but please tell me that you ran a decent "mileage loop" driving at a normal on-the-street reasonable pace and calculated the mileage for both the '88 CRX Si and the CRZ. Why?...pure curiosity.
I can't wait for JGs next masterpiece. No pressure...
I had a friend with a Civic Hybrid equipped with a 5-speed.
Good call, thats news to me. I vaguely considered buying a civic hybrid before i got this Insight but i only saw CVTs and i have a burning hatred for most CVTs.
Cant wait for this article! woo!
racer_ace wrote: Fantastic teaser video! I know that this is not very GRMish but please tell me that you ran a decent "mileage loop" driving at a normal on-the-street reasonable pace and calculated the mileage for both the '88 CRX Si and the CRZ. Why?...pure curiosity. I can't wait for JGs next masterpiece. No pressure...
we couldn't do mileage loops "day of" with both cars for logistical reasons. But we do have enough data in the banks to compare apples to apples.
One minor disappointment for me today—and this is not specifically CR-z Related, but all sporty new Honda related. I pulled the front wheels off for some pix and was greeted by struts. It just seemed so natural that A-arms would be under there. Oh well. Plenty of room for adjustment, though.
jg
You'll need to log in to post.
